Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Revenue (No. 2) Act 1968.
2. Teachers Superannuation (Scotland) Act 1968.
3. National Loans Act 1968.
4. Airdrie Court House Commissioners (Dissolution) Order Confirmation Act 1968.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Development Areas (Timber-using Industries)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a Departmental inquiry to examine methods of assisting timber-using industry in development areas where forestry is a major local industry.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): Timber-using industries wishing to establish themselves, or to expand in development areas, are eligible for the full range of incentives available in those areas. I see no reason for a special inquiry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case we are talking of industries which not only give employment in development areas but utilise home-produced products and at the same time help to save imports?

Mr. Darling: Yes, I appreciate that. We should like to see timber-using industries established in the North-East of Scotland, and other parts of Scotland, too, but we think that this must rest on the commercial judgment of the firms concerned. We shall then give them all the help we possibly can.

Mr. Brewis: Will not the 100-mile limit have a very adverse effect on these industries? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations that it be raised to at least 200 miles for the North of Scotland?

Mr. Darling: I do not think that it will have the kind of effect which the hon. Gentleman envisages, but I shall see that his views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

North-East Scotland

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a Departmental inquiry to examine industry in North-East Scotland, with a view to developing food processing and timber-using industries.

Mr. Darling: A study of North-East Scotland is already being undertaken by Professor Gaskin of Aberdeen University for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that this will include an investigation into the kinds of industry which might prosper in the area, including food processing and timber-using industries. As I said in answer to Question No. 1, the whole range of incentives will be available.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What help is the right hon. Gentleman's Department giving to this survey? It is the first time such a thing has been done. I hope that he is able to do something to help carry it forward quickly.

Mr. Darling: We shall give all the help that Professor Gaskin thinks he may need from the Board of Trade. We have a lot of information which may be of help to him.

Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will be in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to diverting, as far as possible, small boat


projects to shipbuilding firms in that area?

Mr. Darling: I shall see that those views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend. If there are other views which hon. Members wish to express, I shall see that they are passed on, too.

Car Insurance

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received about increases in insurance premiums generally; and if, in view of the further increases in many car insurance premiums and the continued uncertainties in this field, he will now take steps to ensure that cars are insured at the same time and in the same office as they are taxed.

Mr. Darling: Since 1st April, 1967, the Board of Trade has received 360 complaints about increases in insurance premiums generally. I doubt whether it would be desirable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Roberts: But will not my hon. Friend accept that it is only by the simultaneous taxing and insuring of cars that one can give a 100 per cent. guarantee of cover for every road user, thus avoiding the months of suffering caused by haggling between insurance companies and reducing the number of staff, who are at present duplicated, one set being used for taxation and the other for insurance purposes?

Mr. Darling: That suggestion might be considered; but I understand that the Ministry of Transport envisages difficulty in the sort of proposal which my hon. Friend has put forward, and it is really a matter for the Ministry of Transport.

Advance Factories

Mr. Baker: asked the President of the the Board of Trade how many advance factories have been completed in the three months ended 1st March, 1968; and how many remain unlet of those which were completed before and after that date, respectively.

Mr. Derek Page: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories have been completed in the three months ended 1st March, 1968; and

what proportion of these were in development areas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): In the three months ended 1st March, 1968, 11 advance factories, all within development areas, were completed, or which six have been allocated. Of the advance factories completed before that date, 36 remain unallocated: one advance factory has been completed since 1st March, 1968, but has not yet been allocated.

Mr. Baker: What steps is the President of the Board of Trade taking to publicise these factories to possible developers? Second, can the hon. Lady say specifically what progress is being made with the advance factory at Banff?

Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend has mounted a large publicity campaign in order to draw the advantages of advance factories to as many industrialists as possible. I am sorry that land acquisition problems have held up the particular factory which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but we hope that they are now solved.

Tourism (American Restrictions)

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to quantify the financial effect on the British tourist industry of the taxes proposed by the United States administration on American tourists' overseas expenditure.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made of the likely effects on the British tourist trade of the recently announced United States restrictions on foreign travel by United States citizens; and what steps are being taken to offset the likely adverse effects.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): In the absence of precise information about the tax and other measures that may be adopted in the United States, I can make no estimate.

Mr. Crouch: Is not there at least a rumour that the United States is considering dropping its tax on overseas tourist travel? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a lesson for


us that the positive way to solve our currency saving problem is to pursue a positive policy in regard to our tourist industry, rather than a negative policy restricting travel from this country?

Mr. Crosland: I understand that the United States Administration has put certain proposals to the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, which considered the proposals recently and has now deferred consideration of them. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that everybody looks forward to the earliest possible relaxation of the restrictions on overseas travel, but we want to get a surplus first, before deciding how to use it.

Mr. Hall-Davis: As the tourist industry is perhaps the only one where the customer enjoys the full direct benefit of the change in the exchange rate, is not there an urgent need for the right hon. Gentleman to implement the hotel and catering E.D.C. Report, particularly to put the hotel industry on the same tax basis as industrial manufacturing concerns?

Mr. Crosland: There is a Question about the hotel industry and possible Government aid for it later on the Order Paper.

Agreements (Registration)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about agreements between firms which are alleged to be beneficial to the nation's economy, but which are currently registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956; and how many such agreements he estimates would be exempted from the operation of that Act under the proposed new legislation announced on 14th February, 1968.

Mr. Darling: Representations have been received from the National Economic Development Council, some of the Economic Development Councils, and the Comfederation of British Industry. It is not possible to estimate how many agreements will be exempted, but applications for exemption will be stringently examined.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the Minister realise that the bodies to which he referred are very much interested parties, and that the Board of Trade must look after the consumer and other people? Will he think twice before by-passing the court, which is a much better judge of what is beneficial to the nation's economy than the Board of Trade or the distinguished bodies he mentioned?

Mr. Darling: I think that all the legislation designed to maintain competition and make sure that it prevails in British industry has come from the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade's views on these matters are pretty well known.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will estimate how many agreements between firms registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, are likely to be exempted from registration in order to assist the Government's prices and incomes policy under the proposed new legislation announced on 14th February, 1968.

Mr. Darling: No, Sir. I cannot give an exact estimate.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the suggestion in my Question true? If so, will the Minister think twice before by-passing the court, as I fear that the Board of Trade is at present inclined to by-pass the Monopolies Commission, because these two bodies have been set up by Parliament just for this purpose?

Mr. Darling: I can, of course, give the assurance that all the applications for exemption will be thoroughly examined, and only those agreements made at the express written request of a Government Department will be eligible for exemption. The exempted agreements will be published, and the exemption will apply to agreements to lower prices to keep them down, to limit price increases, and to operate the early warning system. The exemptions will be limited in time.

Mr. Higgins: Does the Minister agree that whether or not they will be thoroughly examined is a matter that we shall be scarcely in a position to judge, because they will not be publicly examined in contrast with the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, or does he have a


proposal for making a public examination of these two matters?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right. They will not be publicly examined in the same way as applications for exemption before the court are examined. But the exempted agreements will be published and limited in time.

Tourism (Scotland)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is now taking to promote tourist development in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The Government's rôle in promoting the development of tourism is still under review, and a statement will be made in due course.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exhortations to take home holidays and Scotland's wonderful tourist potential, will the Minister ensure that a more adequate grant is given to the Scottish Tourist Board in place of the present ludicrously low grant given by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Mallalieu: I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the attractions of Scotland. Where promotion is concerned, Scotland is doing pretty well.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend say what the trend in Scottish tourism was last year? Was there an increase as compared with the previous year?

Mr. Mallalieu: There was a substantial increase, and I hope that it will continue this year.

Mr. David Steel: Apart from going into questions of giving extra grants to the tourist industry in Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that a start should be made by removing the Selective Employment Tax from the tourist industry there?

Mr. Mallalieu: That question might be addressed to my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the Minister tell us when we can hope for the statement? Will he assure us that there will be a comprehensive statement on tourism,

taking in the many points made from both sides of the House?

Mr. Mallalieu: The statement, when it comes, will, I hope, be comprehensive. I still cannot give a date. It is a long and complicated matter, and we want to get it right. We want to do it as soon as possible.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister consider learning the lesson of Eire, where tourism has been developed into a major asset, whereas in Scotland it remains a largely undeveloped asset?

Mr. Mallalieu: There is still undeveloped potential in these islands. We are trying to develop them as fast as we can.

North Atlantic Scheduled Air Services

Mr. Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to facilitate competition between British airline operators for North Atlantic scheduled services.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Six applications by independent airlines for North Atlantic scheduled services are now before the Air Transport Licensing Board. It would be wrong for me to offer any comment at this stage.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the reluctance of the hon. Gentleman to offer any comment. Would not he agree that it would be a long overdue gesture to competition if the dominance of B.O.A.C. on this service were diminished to some extent?

Mr. Mallalieu: The reluctance to which the hon. Gentleman referred is solely due to the fact that I might be involved in a judicial capacity at a later stage. Whether or not competition is really desirable on this route is one of the matters the Edwards Inquiry is going into.

Mr. Cronin: Does my hon. Friend agree that increased competition between British airline operators on the Atlantic would cause nothing but rejoicing to our foreign competitors, and that the most appropriate action would be to induce the International Air Travel Association to lower transatlantic fares so that there would not be an artificial subsidy of less efficient foreign airlines?

Mr. Mallalieu: There is a great deal of point in what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Corfield: Does the Minister recall that while British Eagle was operating on the North Atlantic route there was a rising British share of this traffic, and that the decrease dates from the time when British Eagle ceased to operate on it?

Mr. Mallalieu: I doubt very much whether it was a case of cause and effect.

Republic of South Africa (Trade)

Mr. Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the British National Exports Council with a view to promoting trade with the Republic of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: There is continuous consultation with the B.N.E.C. Area Committee for Southern Africa with a view to expanding our exports of non-military goods.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the immense economic potential of this market and its likely political stability, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in this instance there is a case for a specific representation on his part to underline the importance he and his Department attach to this market?

Mr. Crosland: The B.N.E.C. Area Committee for Southern Africa is perfectly well seized of the importance of this market as a whole, as is the Board of Trade. Subject to the ban on military goods, it is certainly a market which we want to see developed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the debate on arms exports, the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that ordinary trade with South Africa was of doubtful morality, was not repudiated by the Front Bench, though Ministers were asked to repudiate it? Will he make it perfectly clear it is the Government's policy to encourage and not discourage, this valuable trade?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. The argument, as I recollect it, was not that it was of doubtful morality but that it was—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of debate, not of order.

Mr. Crosland: I regret that I did not have the pleasure of hearing my hon. Friend's speech on that occasion, but I have before me a quotation from the winding-up speech of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, which made it perfectly clear that the Government wished to develop normal commercial and trading relations with South Africa.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Mr. David Howell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what instructions he has given to the British delegation to the United Nations Committee for Trade and Development conference in New Delhi regarding schemes to encourage private investment in developing countries.

Mr. Crosland: The Government's attitude towards this question was set out in the 1965 White Paper on Overseas Development, and I have instructed the British Delegation in New Delhi to be guided by this.—[Cmnd. 2736.]

Mr. Howell: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while his speech at the New Delhi Conference was, on the whole, well received, it was unfortunate that there was in it no mention of private investment possibilities? Particularly in the light of the Strikker Report, are there not good possibilities for making public aim and private investment work better together in future?

Mr. Crosland: There were two reasons for my omission of that aspect in my speech at New Delhi. First, speeches at U.N.C.T.A.D. and elsewhere tend to be much too long anyway, and I wanted to make a rather concentrated speech. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for he was in New Delhi, the question of private investment is not one of the burning controversial issues before the Conference. But, of course, I agree that it has a very important part to play.

Mr. Judd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the achievements of the 1968 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to date.

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meeting in New Delhi; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: The Conference continues until 25th March. Discussions are still in progress on a wide range of issues in the Committees of the Conference and it is not possible at this stage to forecast the outcome of these discussions.

Mr. Judd: Could my right hon. Friend say what initiatives we have been able to take on preference schemes and how far we have been able to iron out the paralysing differences, particularly with the French. on a whole range of issues before the Conference?

Mr. Crosland: As I think my hon. Friend knows we have played a very active part, not only in the Conference generally but particularly on this question he raised. Ironing out the differences of opinion amongst developed countries is a very difficult task indeed, which we certainly cannot yet claim to have achieved. It is the experience with these Conferences, I understand from those who have been to them before, that it is only in the last fortnight of the eight-week Conference that it gets down to a detailed discussion and the possibility of agreement. My estimate is that we are now just starting on the critical stages.

Mr. Lane: May I reinforce a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell), and urge the right hon. Gentleman to do more, in the context of this Conference and elsewhere, to promote and encourage private investment abroad?

Mr. Crosland: There may be a misunderstanding. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion about the rôle that private investment can play. The fact is that this is not one of the most controversial issues requiring to be settled with U.N.C.T.A.D.

Mr. Higgins: While agreeing with the Minister that the last fortnight is likely to be crucial, as was shown by the rôle played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) in U.N.C.T.A.D. 1, could the Minister tell

us whether he or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development is likely to visit New Delhi at that time?

Mr. Crosland: I have an absolutely open mind on this at the moment. This is something on which one must be guided by the advice of people on the spot. As the hon. Member knows, we have an extremely powerful delegation there but it has not as yet advised me that it would be necessary for me to go back. If it does I shall take it very seriously.

British European Airways (Trident 3-B Aircraft)

Mr. Corfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an outline of the compensation arrangements agred with British European Airways arising from the refusal by the Government to sanction the aircraft of their choice.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the position regarding the second half of British European Airways' proposed re-equipment programme.

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the aircraft re-equipment programme of British European Airways.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the aircraft re-equipment programme of British European Airways.

Mr. Crosland: B.E.A. has sought my approval for the purchase of 26 Trident 3-B aircraft, with an option for 10 more. I have informed the Corporation that the Government approves the purchase of a fleet of Trident 3-B aircraft and have suggested that it should enter into negotiations with the manufacturers. Detailed approval must await the outcome of these negotiations. Meanwhile, I am discussing with the Corporation the financial arrangements required to implement the undertaking given by the then Minister of Aviation on 2nd August, 1966.

Mr. Corfield: While welcoming the news that B.E.A. is at last in a position to place an order, may I ask for an


assurance that no further delays will be caused by unnecessarily prolonging the negoiations on compensation?

Mr. Crosland: I can give that assurance completely. We are as anxious as B.E.A. to speed matters up as fast as we can.

Mr. Howarth: This is good news to those hon. Members who have been hoping for an early decision on this, the second half of the re-equipment programme of B.E.A. Will my right hon. Friend accept that it brings satisfaction in view of the constant statement, particularly by hon. Members opposite, denigrating a very fine aircraft which, in its Mark 1 and Mark 2 versions, has given excellent service to B.E.A?

Mr. Crosland: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's comments.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the estimated deliveries of this aircraft are? Has he looked into the commercial prospects of selling it abroad? Such prospects must come into the deal with B.E.A.

Mr. Crosland: As the hon. Gentleman will recall from the exchanges following my statement before Christmas, we have considered the export prospects for this aircraft and we think that, following devaluation, there are some prospects and possibly even more of import saving. But it would give a false impression to pretend that there was a huge export market for it. I should like notice of the point about delivery dates.

Mr. Rankin: Did not the previous financial agreement to which my right hon. Friend has referred comprehend a decision that, if B.E.A. were compelled to buy an aircraft not of its own choice, it would be compensated operationally by the Government? Does that still stand?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. We stand by the statement made by the then Minister of Aviation that the Government will take steps to ensure that B.E.A. can operate as a fully commercial undertaking with the fleet it acquires. That still stands.

Invisible Exports (Permanent Committee)

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government are now taking to encourage a

further growth of Great Britain's overseas invisible earnings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to help the balance of payments by encouraging Great Britain's invisible overseas earnings.

Mr. Crosland: After consulting the Government, the Bank of England and the British National Export Council have established a permanent Committee on Invisible Exports. Its task will be to suggest and, where possible, implement measures to encourage invisible earnings in the light of the conclusions and recommendations of the Bland Report. The Government are still considering a number of recommendations in that report which relate to possible action by Government Departments.

Mr. Blaker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that more publicity could usefully be given to the fact that Britain's invisible exports already amount to more than one-third of her total exports? With regard to his remarks about action to be taken by the Government, does not he agree that the most important recommendations, particularly with regard to the Selective Employment Tax, in the Bland Report are matters for Government action?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Mr. Crosland: I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about publicity. The Bland Report has drawn to the attention of people who did not realise it before what a large contribution is made by our invisible exports. Today, the House will have noted that we have made an innovation in our publication of the monthly trade figures by including a reference to invisible exports. The question of the Selective Employment Tax appears to raise rather wider matters.

Mr. Osborn: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the City of London has an important part to play, would not he also agree that, if South Africa were to sell gold on the Paris market, this would be progress in the wrong direction?

Mr. Crosland: I agree that the City of London has an important rôle to play in encouraging invisible exports. I have


no comment to make on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Cant: When listening to recommendations for increasing income from invisible exports, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of these activities in the City increase the sensitivity of this country to pressures on sterling? Will he, jointly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, set up a cost benefit analysis of the City's activities in this field?

Mr. Crosland: I think that my hon. Friend is getting the matter out of perspective because, if he examines the figures on invisibles given in the Bland Report, he will find that the main contribution comes from sectors which are not relevant to the question he has put. What makes us vulnerable is not, as people often suppose, merely the position of sterling as a reserve currency but the fact that sterling is a major trading currency, and this is something we should not seek to bring to an end without the most careful consideration.

Sir K. Joseph: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should not hide behind a new committee, however admirable, from taking decisions on the straightforward recommendations of the Bland Committee, such as those on the Selective Employment Tax, which are in the Government's power to deal with?

Mr. Crosland: It is not a question of hiding behind a new committee, because it was the Bland Report itself which suggested that this Committee should be appointed. We are thus carrying out one of the Bland Report's major recommendations in setting the Committee up. The question of the Selective Employment Tax is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it raises all sorts of matters going far beyond the question of invisible exports.

Mr. Spriggs: Is not the real moral behind this question that Blackpool is the finest holiday and conference centre in the world?

Early Potatoes (Imports)

Mr. Brewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now take steps to restrict imports of early potatoes in the interests of the economy.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No, Sir. There is no justification for imposing restrictions on trade that would damage our international trading relations and our exports.

Mr. Brewis: Why do we have to import these early potatoes from these 10 different countries, with many of which we have an adverse trade balance? Saving imports is as valuable as increasing exports.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are aware of the need for more import saving. We do not allow imports of main crop potatoes because this might affect those of our producers who are not in the early potato market.

Clocks (Dumping)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the dumping of clocks in the United Kingdom; what were the terms of his reply; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Complaints have been made to the Board of Trade and Ministry of Technology by the British Clock and Watch Manufacturers Association and by my hon. Friends, the Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). They related to low-priced imports of alarm clocks from eastern area countries. We are in correspondence with the Association about the effect of these imports—which are limited by quotas—upon the home industry.

Mr. Dempsey: Have not these imports increased recently, in some cases by as much as 25 per cent.? That impression is going around with the belief that it will undermine severely the market in this country.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The import of cheap alarm clocks is controlled by quota and obviously we should not agree to a quota which we felt would be materially damaging to our own industry.

Mr. Younger: Although this importation is limited by quota, does not the hon. Lady agree that the quota allowed makes for a very large comparison with British production? A lot of jobs are at stake if this is allowed to go on.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are sympathetic to the difficulties our industry is facing but some of them are due to the competition it is getting from low-priced clocks in export markets.

Mr. Lawson: Would my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Board of Trade has gone back on its undertaking to bring in early legislation on this occasion since this is surely a question of anti-dumping legislation?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Under no circumstances whatsoever. We are bringing this legislation before the House very shortly.

Aircraft (Investment Grants)

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusion he has reached regarding the eligibility of aircraft for investment grants.

Mr. Darling: I see no reason at present to depart from the priorities laid down in the White Paper on investment incentives.

Mr. Onslow: When ships and hovercraft both qualify for investment grants, why does the Minister persist in subsidising these two types of external transport at the expense of air transport? Is it not time that something was done to widen the British market for British aircraft, and to stop firms such as the British Steel Corporation from buying foreign aircraft?

Mr. Darling: I know nothing about the latter part of the hon. Member's Question. He will be aware of the reasons for excluding aircraft, which were given and fully discussed during the proceedings on the Industrial Development Bill, even though he finds them unacceptable. Since investment is being considered by the Edwards Committee, we ought to postpone the exchange, which I know the hon. Member would wish to have, until we see that Report.

Mr. Corfield: If the right hon. Gentleman will not consider including aircraft in the investment grants scheme will he, in view of the increasing recognition of the value to business efficiency of air transport, whether by scheduled aircraft or executive-type aircraft, endeavour to find some way of encouraging investment in aircraft?

Mr. Darling: That is a question which I would always be prepared to study.

Association of International Accountants

Mr. Ford: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made following the further representations of the Association of International Accountants following its application for recognition under section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1948; and what further proposals he has to safeguard the position of students under the auspices of this body, whose position is prejudiced following the passage of the Companies Bill, 1967.

Mr. Darling: I received a deputation from the Association on 6th February and undertook to consider some further information which the Association said that it would supply. I have only very recently received that information, and I am now considering it.

Mr. Ford: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he has not replied to the latter part of my Question, and that this "non-reply" miserably fails to reconcile itself with the remarks that he made in Committee on this matter? Is he aware that this matter will be pursued with determination until some element of justice enters the situation?

Mr. Darling: I have certainly not gone back on any undertaking that I gave in Committee. I asked the Association to provide me with further information on matters that arose in my discussions with it. The discussions took place on 6th February and I received this further information yesterday. I am not holding up anything.

Industries (Exports and Import Substitution)

Mr. Judd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate a survey of the capacity of industries suited to exporting or to manufacturing import substitutes, at present involved in defence and other Government contracts and in projects for statutory undertakers.

Mr. Darling: No special survey is necessary. The Government have already taken action, and next week will take


more, to achieve the necessary shift of resources from home consumption, both public and private, to exports and import substitution. We are also in constant touch with industry, both directly and through the Economic Development Committees, in order to identify in advance any sectors where capacity limitation is likely to become a problem.

Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that there are considerable human and capital resources in Government enterprises which if fully utilised would result in releasing other private resources for exports and import substitution?

Mr. Darling: The difficulty is to identify the Government industries, Government factories and so on that my hon. Friend has in mind where there is such unused capacity which could be used for the purpose that he has put forward.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not amazing that the Government have no special survey on import substitution? Is this not the most important subject facing the Government now, with imports reaching £500 million and above last year? Do not Questions Nos. 14 and 15 and this Question highlight the importance of this?

Mr. Darling: The Government have a tremendous amount of information provided for them by the National Economic Development Office and by the "Little Neddies" for industry. Full use is made of this information.

Luton Airport (Aircraft Movement)

Mr. Allason: asked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions he intends to place upon aircraft movement at Luton Airport, in view of the introduction there of jet aircraft.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The hon. Member is, I understand, concerned with restrictions to reduce noise disturbance. In my view this is a matter for the airport owners, Luton Corporation, who are best placed to decide what restrictions are necessary.

Mr. Allason: If the owners do not take action, and appalling noise results, particularly noise at night, would it not be the duty of the Government to inter-

fere, because people must be protected, as they have been protected at Heathrow?

Mr. Mallalieu: I fully agree that people must be protected, but this is a corporation of elected representatives. They are right on the spot and I think that they will watch the interests of their own people.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Can my hon. Friend say whether he has approached the Luton Corporation in order to find out how many complaints it has had on this matter?

Mr. Mallalieu: We have been in fairly regular touch with Luton Corporation about ways and means of cutting down noise. We gave advice about routing and so forth, but we have not been in touch on this specific point.

Development Districts (Government Contracts)

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to eliminate the difficulties being experienced in placing Government contracts with firms in development districts; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The many forms of Government assistance to manufacturing industry in development areas should place firms in those areas in a strong position to compete for Government contracts. The Government also give preference to development area firms in awarding contracts.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the placing of Government contracts can make drastic inroads into the unemployment figures in the development areas? Is he further aware that firms in these areas are finding it difficult, in dealing with Government Departments, to get them to change from their old habits and from the firms with whom they have previously dealt? Could she look into this matter more closely?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The whole point of the contract preference scheme is to assist firms in the development areas. They are clearly marked on purchasing lists. I will certainly look at the point raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that this step will begin to have very practical effects soon.

Dame Irene Ward: Following that very unsatisfactory reply, could the hon. Lady say quite specifically what is happening to the promises made by the Prime Minister, in our area? This is the question to which we want an answer. Is she aware that her answer to her hon. Friend failed to make sense at all?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am very sorry if the hon. Lady found it difficult to understand. I should point out that her particular region is having some very active work put into it. There was an excellent debate in the House last Friday on this subject.

Take-over Bids and Mergers

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the recent big, mergers in industry, what steps he is taking to increase the power of the Monopolies Commission to control takeover bids and mergers.

Mr. Crosland: I consider that my present powers, both to refer mergers to the Monopolies Commission and to act on their conclusions, are adequate.

Mr. Ridsdale: Surely our present monopolies legislation does not protect the individual in this country nearly as much as the anti-trust laws in the United States? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern of many people in the country about the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals either in the State or in industry?

Mr. Crosland: A lot of people with knowledge of the American situation would have grave doubts about what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his supplementary question about how effective American anti-trust legislation is. On the second part, this is not fundamentally a problem of power. The Government have the power which they need. To put it crudely, both political parties and industry are slightly schizophrenic about this. On the one hand, we want mergers and rationalisation in many industries. On the other hand, we have our traditional obligation to protect the consumer.

Mr. Sheldon: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to be in a position to announce the action he intends

to take following the Report on manmade fibres by the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Crosland: I have already made a statement about this matter in which I said that we are setting up a tariff inquiry of the kind proposed by the Monopolies Commission. As to its other recommendations, we propose at once to start discussing the possible outcome with Courtaulds.

Sir K. Joseph: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his first reply to this Question that he regards acceptance of some of the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission on the manmade fibres theme as being outside his present powers and that he does not mind their being outside his powers? In other words, is he not following up the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that Courtaulds, in this case, should not carry its purchasing any further in certain sectors of the textile industry?

Mr. Crosland: No; I am not conscious that what I said could have given rise to that interpretation. What I have said, and what I repeat, is that we are discussing the recommendations with Courtaulds, but in the light of the Government's declared policy to encourage rationalisation of the textile industry.

Cotton Yarn and Cloth (Imports)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures for imports during 1967 of cotton yarn and cloth and indicate what action he intends to take to reduce the increasing rate of imports from non-quota countries.

Mr. Crosland: Retained imports in 1967 amounted to 39 million lb. of yarn and 574 million yards of cloth.
As I have already made clear. I do not propose to take far reaching decisions about imports until I have the results of the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study.

Mr. Howarth: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that the basic problem of the textile industry is the increasing level of textile imports? Will he promise early action to close the sort of gap indicated in the Question?

Mr. Crosland: What was remarkable about the increase in imports in 1967 was that the greater part did not come from so-called quota countries, the less developed countries; it came from the non-quota countries which largely have wage levels as high as ours. I have said again and again—and I must stand by this—that I shall wait for the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study before taking a long-term view on the future of imports.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Of the non-quota countries, Portugal does not have wage levels comparable to our own. Could the right hon. Gentleman give some information about how the agreement which his predecessor made is working?

Mr. Crosland: The effect of what my predecessor did was that, after a very large increase in imports from Portugal in the first three months of last year, there was a very rapid fall. They are now running at a much lower level than they were at this time last year.

Industry (Questionnaires)

Mr. Costain: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new types of questionnaire have been issued by his Department to industry since October, 1964; and what is the total number of questions asked on these forms.

Mr. Darling: Forty-eight and 642 respectively.

Mr. Costain: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that filling in forms is not the way to help our economy? Does he realise that I am putting a series of Questions to Government Departments to ascertain which one requires the greatest number of forms to be completed? The right hon. Gentleman's Department does not hold the record and win my wooden spoon; the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department is winning at the moment.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is off the beam, as usual. The Board of Trade does not ask industry to supply a lot of useless information. For instance, 17 of the questionnaires to which I have referred are for investment grant applications. Instead of sending out one comprehensive form for all industries, we have

one fairly simple form for each industry or group of similar industries. The same applies to the production statistics. Instead of having one enormous questionnaire, we have 16 fairly simple ones, each for a particular industry. This makes everybody's task much easier.

Detergent Packets

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will intoduce legislation to define "small", "medium", "large", "giant", "family" and "king" as used on packets by detergent manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further legislation is not necessary as these packets are already required to be marked with their weight.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me information which I already knew. Would she realise that this "Alice in Wonderland" language is quite absurd? New heights have been reached in the past three weeks or so. "Half a pound for free" is not for free. Does the Board of Trade propose to allow this situation to continue?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Nobody sympathises more than I do with the housewife in trying to sort out the various detergents. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to know that the whole question of packaging in specified weights is still under discussion.

Banks and Discount Houses (Disclosure of Information)

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusion he has reached as to whether certain classes of banks and discount companies should disclose more information in their accounts; whether he has completed his discussions on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Darling: The study of the full accounts of the banks and discount houses over a period will take a considerable time and I cannot say when the review is likely to be completed.

Mr. Shaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the matter has become much more urgent and important in recent days because of the proposed mergers and the whole climate of take-over


bids which now exists in banks and discount houses as well as in industry? Is it not very unfair for shareholders and the investing public not to have the slightest idea of the contents of a bank's accounts?

Mr. Darling: I am not sure that the question of disclosure, which was in reference to how much should be disclosed overseas, is altered by the fact that the bank mergers are going on. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish us to rush this inquiry. If I remember aright, he agreed during the proceedings on the Companies Bill that we must fully and carefully examine what the consequences would be if full disclosure were made. We are now examining the situation.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend assure us that the report of the inquiry will be published before the shareholders and the public have to make any decision about whether they agree to the price offered in the recent proposed bank merger?

Mr. Darling: That is a different question, and I should like notice of it.

Investment Grants Scheme

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department made before introducing the investment grants scheme of the number of man hours likely to be spent by industry on applications for grants; and what subsequent investigations he has made on this point since the introduction of the scheme.

Captain W. Elliot: asked the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department made, before introducing the investment grants scheme, of the number of man hours likely to be spent by industry on applications for grants; and what subsequent investigations he has made on this point since the introduction of the scheme.

Mr. Darling: It was recognised that the nature of the scheme would cause some additional work. Precise information is not available but experience suggests that for most applicants the cost of claiming is not likely to be more than 1 per cent. of the value of grant received.

Mr. Shaw: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that my information is—and it seems to be fairly widespread—that there is a considerable amount of work involved in preparing these claims and that the old system of investment allowances involved no extra work whatsoever?

Mr. Darling: Yes, but I think that the extra work has resulted, not so much from the switch from investment allowances to investment grants, but from the discriminatory nature of investment grants. It is likely that if investment allowances had continued they, too, would have become discriminatory and, in that case, there would have been additional work.

Captain Elliot: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is already an enormous load on business people in making returns for Government purposes? Is he aware that this is just one more ill-prepared scheme which makes life for business people so much more difficult than is necessary?

Mr. Darling: I do not agree. I should have thought that any properly conducted concern could ascertain this information from the normal running of its business. It is only a matter of extracting it and putting it on the simple form which we provide. But there is another factor. Many firms are finding, and are writing to tell us so, that receipt of the cash grant earlier than they received investment allowances is producing substantial savings on financing charges which more than offset the cost of preparing the returns.

Mr. Barnett: As we have had to deal with both investment grants and investment allowances, would my right hon. Friend take it from me that the present system is more complicated? Nevertheless, has he not had representations from industry that it would prefer to continue with the present system rather than have any further changes made at this stage?

Mr. Darling: I concur with the view which my hon. Friend has expressed.

Aluminium Smelter Works (Location)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the location of an


aluminium smelter works in the Northern Region.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet able to announce the results of the Government's consideration of proposals for aluminium smelters; and what representations he has received from Great Britain's European Free Trade Association partners on this question.

Mr. Crosland: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the various smelter proposals. As regards the E.F.T.A. aspects, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 7th February.

Mr. Willey: Meanwhile, can my right hon. Friend confirm that aluminium companies have shown an interest in the location of a smelter in the North-East, and will he assure the House that this interest will receive every encouragement from the Government?

Mr. Crosland: I can certainly assure the House that the claims of the North-East, as, indeed, the claims of all other regions, have been strongly pressed upon the Government.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Whilst hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will go ahead, may I ask him what recent representations he has had from E.F.T.A., and particularly Norway, who are very concerned about the effect of investment grants?

Mr. Crosland: The position as to E.F.T.A. is that a special working party was set up to discuss the Norwegian complaint against us, and that working party has, I understand, nearly finished its deliberations now and will be reporting in the next few days.

Mr. Leadbitter: Does my right hon. Friend understand that individual Members of Parliament from the Northern Region have made representations and application from an aluminium smelting company has been made for a particular site and that the northern group has been interested, and that we do not understand why the Press seems to have more information than we or this House?

Mr. Crosland: I have a great deal of sympathy with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The fact is that in a case like this where discussions have to go on with the companies concerned it is almost impossible, apparently, to avoid leaks of that character which I personally find extremely deplorable.

Mr. Higgins: How long is it since the Government had the first approach on this matter, and can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication when a statement is likely to be made?

Mr. Crosland: It has been a long and inevitably complicated business involving major questions of the best use of our national resources, of import policy, of regional policy, E.F.T.A. and the like. So the fact is that it has been since—I believe: I speak subject to correction—last summer that the matter has been under discussion. As to when a statement will be made, I hope in the near future, but I cannot be more definite than that.

Advance Factory, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the advance factory in Sunderland which at present is unoccupied.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Every effort, including advertising in the national Press, is being made to find a tenant for this factory.

Mr. Willey: In view of our present unemployment difficulties, which I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, will she consider taking exceptional steps to advertise this vacancy and call attention to the excellence of this factory and the need to provide employment there?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are very anxious to find tenants for all our advance factories. We sympathise with the situation in Sunderland, and are doing everything we can to help.

Shipowners (Investment Grants)

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of investment grants that have been committed or paid to United Kingdom subsidiaries of foreign shipowners in respect


of ships built elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, to date.

Mr. Darling: On the latest information available, I estimate that over the next few years approximately £36½ million will be paid in investmant grants to British shipping companies controlled by persons resident outside the United Kingdom, in respect of ships built abroad.

Mr. Ridley: Can the Minister give any possible justification as to why British taxpayers should subsidise competitors of British shipowners to build ships in foreign shipyards, thereby robbing our own shipyards of orders?

Mr. Darling: Yes, because there has been no change of policy from that pursued by the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let me make this clear. The payment of investment grants to ships abroad is in line with the previous Government's policy. They paid 40 per cent. investment allowance on ships whether they were built in this country or built overseas, and to the same shipowners we pay 25 per cent. investment grant. The purpose of the grants, of course, is to help to encourage investment in new ships so that the British mercantile marine can be the leading shipping service in the world, properly equipped, and continuing to bring us in about £300 million a year to help our balance of payments. We cannot discriminate against ships built abroad—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers are getting long.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer is not good enough for us on this side of the House, that to say we are following the practice of the previous Government in this context is not a satisfactory answer to the criticism now launched through this Question? Is he aware that so far as I am concerned—I am sure he is—as a persistent critic of the system of investment grants as compared with the old system of investment allowances I reiterate my contention that before investment allowances were given a profit had to be shown by the business—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief. The Minister.

Mr. Darling: I quite agree with my hon. Friend's first observation, that just because a policy was pursued by the previous Government that is no reason for our following it. My right hon. Friend has already taken steps to ensure that the situation which has been described is not exploited to our disadvantage.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of investment grants that have been committed or paid to United Kingdom shipowners in respect of ships built elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, to date.

Mr. Darling: On the latest information available, I estimate that £29 million will be paid over the next few years in investment grants to United Kingdom controlled British shipping companies in respect of ships built outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Minister not rely upon traditional Conservatism to justify the expenditure of a further £29 million of taxpayers' money for subsidising our competing shipyards abroad?

Mr. Darling: Yes. I agree that we must see that more ships, whether for British or foreign shipowners, are built in British yards. As the House knows, we have taken steps in that direction through the new shipbuilding industry arrangements, but many of these so-called foreign businesses are in fact businesses, although foreign-controlled, which have been registered in this country, and they pay British tax in this country, and they bring us returns in this country, and they have got an honourable association with the British mercantile marine.

Mr. Rankin: Has my right hon. Friend weighed the practice he has just told us about against the fact that at this particular moment we are threatened with the close down of a shipyard on Clyde-side and with putting thousands of men out of work? The same applies to Teesside. So we are losing exports. How do the two things balance out?

Mr. Darling: A number of the ships involved here which are being built abroad are ships which British shipyards did not, and perhaps could not, tender for because of their special design, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the


amount of investment grant going to British ships being built in British yards is increasing and will go on increasing, and I think these figures will be reversed before long.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the choice for many British shipowners is not at all whether to build in Britain or whether to build abroad, if they are to operate certain types of tonnage at an economic level, because in some circumstances these types of tonnage simply cannot be built in this country?

Mr. Darling: That was, I think, a point I made a moment or two ago.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now public knowledge that the financial support of the shipbuilding industry in this country through Government agencies compares favourably with that of the rest of the world, but will he understand that the modem shipyard on Tees-side which is now going to be closed involves unemployment for 3,000 people, and that those 3,000 people will not understand the reason for subsidies for creating work for shipyards abroad and not at home?

Mr. Darling: Yes, I think we are all aware of the distress caused by the decision to close the Furness shipyard, but I would doubt very much whether refusing to give investment grants to ships built abroad would have saved the Furness shipyard.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Anti-Dumping Procedures

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Government intends to implement the anti-dumping procedures agreed in the Kennedy Round negotiations.

Mr. Crosland: I aim to secure amending legislation by the 1st July, 1968, when the Kennedy Round Agreement on antidumping enters into force for each party which has accepted it by that date. A Ways and Means Resolution was tabled on 8th March.

Mr. Campbell: As the Government said some weeks ago that they were going to introduce a Bill shortly, can the right hon. Gentleman say what the reason has been for the delay?

Mr. Crosland: I do not think there has been much delay. As I say, the Ways and Means Resolution has now been tabled, and the Bill will have its First Reading as soon as the Ways and Means Resolution is passed.

Insurance (Statistics)

Mr. John Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to fill the statistical deficiencies relating to the insurance industry portfolio investment, the foreign earnings of life insurance business overseas, and the home-foreign underwriting business transacted in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Darling: Board of Trade officials are in touch with the British Insurance Association on these matters.

Mr. Hall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the information is likely to become available and, if so, when?

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are having a series of discussions with the insurance interests. I should not like to make a guess as to the date when any conclusions will be reached. I hope that the discussions will not take long. As to whether the information will be published, I should like notice of that question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question. Sir Harmar Nicholls.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, PETERBOROUGH

Sir Harmar Nicholls: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport if she has any statement to make on the railway accident which occurred at Peterborough on the evening of Monday, 11th March.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Yes, Sir. The facts as so far known are that at 21.20 on 11th March the 17.00 fly ash train from Drake-low to Fletton comprising 27 vacuum


braked hopper wagons and hauled by a Type 4 diesel engine collided at slow speed with the rear of the 17.54 fly ash train from West Burton to Fletton which was standing on the up goods line about one mile south of Peterborough Station. The stationary train comprised 48 air-braked hopper wagons and its brakes were on at the moment of collision which made the effects of the collision worse. It is with deep regret that I must inform the House that two of the three trainmen in the cab of the colliding engine were killed and the third was trapped and injured. The guard who was riding in the rear cab of the engine escaped injury. The cause of the accident has yet to be established and I have directed that an inquiry into it be held.
I know the House will join with me in expressing sincere sympathy with the relatives of the deceased and with the injured trainman.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the citizens of the railway city of Peterborough would wish to be associated with her expressions of sympathy to the families of those who were killed? Is she also aware that there is growing apprehension that the number of accidents of this sort happening are too often due to some internal failure? It is suggested, for example, that the train which was in front in this case, according to the timetable laid down, should have been behind. Is there anything that she can say at this early stage about that?

Mrs. Castle: No. It would be very wrong of me to anticipate the examination at the inquiry. I think that the House would rather wait and see what is revealed. I would not like to prejudge.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we on this side of the House would like to be associated with her expressions of sympathy to those concerned, particularly to the railwayman who was trapped in the train for more than ten hours? When looking into this inquiry or at the position generally, would she perhaps inquire into the growing concern at the increase in the number of derailments of freight trains over the last two or three years? Her Department's own figures show a steep

rise in these derailments, and I think that it is worthy of a general inquiry.

Mrs. Castle: Each derailment may have its own special characteristics. It may prove to be that the causes here were not identical with those in other derailments. I think that the best thing is to examine cases in detail, as we try to do, and certainly I am keeping a very close watch on the position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question. Mr. Hooley.

BY-ELECTIONS (PAMPHLET)

Mr. Hooley: (by Private Notice)asked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action under Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, in respect of the free supply by Aims of Industry of a pamphlet entitled "Transport Leaflet for By-Elections" to the electors in the by-elections now pending.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): If my hon. Friend will forward to me details of the alleged contravention of the Act, I shall refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for him to make such inquiries as seem to him to be appropriate.

Mr. Hooley: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Certainly I will supply the information that he has requested. Would he not agree that it is undesirable that a powerful pressure group with secret funds should seek to influence elections in this fashion?

The Attorney-General: As I am asked to have a possible criminal offence investigated, perhaps the least that I say about the matter, the better.

Mr. Peyton: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, if a Government introduce what the Leader of the House describes as "fascinating little experiments" of this kind, it is in the performance of a public duty that any organisation such as Aims of Industry brings the proposals in detail to the notice of the public who, at first blush, might not be ready to believe that any Government could be so demented as to produce them?

The Attorney-General: I do not want to anticipate the results of the inquiry by the Director of Public Prosecutions. But if the inquiry were to discover unauthorised expenditure with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, I hope that even the hon. Gentleman would not countenance matters of that kind.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that if the Conservative candidate in South Kensington fails to include the appropriate costs in his by-election return of costs, he will take up, as a test case in the courts, the question of whether such a move was justified?

The Attorney-General: The important matter is to get hold of the facts first and then consider what action, if any, is appropriate in the light of the information that may be obtained.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a candidate can be placed in a very awkward position if literature is distributed in his support without his authorisation? Will he make sure that, in any action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, if it can be established that the candidate concerned has not authorised it, he does not suffer?

The Attorney-General: As I say, the critical question is whether any unauthorised expenditure is undertaken with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate. That is the mischief at which Section 63(1) of the Act is directed, and that is no doubt the matter which the Director will investigate in relation to this case.

Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that this is just part of the campaign against the Transport Bill and that the leaflet concerned is conveying misleading and quite untrue information? Would he also convey this to the proper quarters for examination?

The Attorney-General: I think that this distribution by politically motivated organisations does not always constitute the commission of a criminal offence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. McCann.]

EARLY DAY MOTION No. 195

Mr. Hiley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a terribly serious mistake which has been made in the Order Paper? I refer to Early Day Motion No. 195, where my name has been associated with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen with whom I have nothing in common. It was intended that my name should be added to those associated with the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I know the embarrassment that the hon. Gentleman will feel and that those whose names with whom he has been associated will feel for the mistake which has been made. It will be corrected.

RENAL TRANSPLANTATION

3.38 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit removal from the body of a human person, duly certified as dead, any kidney or kidneys required for medical purposes, unless there is reason to believe that the deceased during his lifetime had instructed otherwise.
The entire civilised world is moved today by the medical achievement of transplanting a heart from a dead person to a living person for the purpose of saving his life. We do not know, and it is axiomatic that we shall not know for years yet, the prospects post-transplant for survival of the heart recipient. So also with prospects for transplants of other major human organs such as lungs, livers, bowels and so on—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And brains.

Sir G. Nabarro: And brains. Probably the use of plastic organs will overtake the transplantation of human organs. That will depend on medical and scientific evolution and discovery during the next few years.
Transplantation of human organs arouses deep emotions, physiological and biological, religious and social. I state my belief today quite simply. Following the diagnosis of death by conventional and accepted means, and death certified by two doctors, other than the surgeon conducting a renal transplantation, it is justified, in my view, on ethical grounds, to remove a kidney or kidneys for prolongation of life of a sick human being, always provided—I repeat, always provided—there should be some safeguard for persons who do not wish this to be done for religious or other reasons.
The Bill that I propose deals with kidneys alone—none other human organ—hence the title "Renal Transplantation Bill". There is a good practical reason for this. It is that only in the field of kidneys, among all the blood-fed organs—that is, excluding corneal grafting, because the cornea is not a blood-fed organ—has there been very substantial success already achieved by doctors during the last few years. At Cambridge alone, Professor Roy Calne has success-

fully carried out about 30 kidney transplants in the last two years. Recipients of transplanted kidneys are now living up to five years. As the supply of healthy kidneys increases—and I believe it will increase—and selection and typing of tissue, the donor with the recipient, improves, the whole process will become easier and longevity post-transplant will also increase. My purpose is to seek to increase the supply of human kidneys in order to diminish the 3,000 deaths in this country alone, in a single year, which are attributed to kidney disorders and diseases.
Sufficient kidneys are not, and never will be, available in the present state of the law. I paraphrase the condition of the law very shortly today under the Human Tissue Act, 1961, roughly as follows:
"1.—(2) If any person, either in writing at any time or orally in the presence of two or more witnesses…has expressed a request that his body or any specified part of his body be used after his death for therapeutic purposes or for purposes of medical education or research, the person lawfully in possession of his body after his death may…authorise the removal from the body of any part or…specified part, for use in accordance with the request.
"(2)…the person lawfully in possession of the body…may authorise the removal of any part from the body…if, having made any such reasonable enquiry as may be practicable, he has no reason to believe—

(a) that the deceased had expressed an objection to his body being so dealt with…or
(b) that the surviving spouse or any surviving relative of the deceased objects to the body being so dealt with."

This, in the context of kidneys, is extremely restrictive and makes the removal of kidneys from a dead body in the overwhelming majority of circumstances utterly impracticable for saving the life of a sick person; though no blame attaches to our legislators in 1961, because at that time no successful renal transplantations had been accomplished.


This branch of surgery—renal transplantation—has been largely developed only in the last few years, since 1961.
A human kidney, to be of use for transplantation, must be removed from the newly deceased body within one hour of death, either for immediate transplantation into the body of a sick person or for preservation under suitable conditions for future use. Preservation means that the removed kidney is cooled or refrigerated between 0 degree Centigrade and 1 degree Centigrade.
Clearly, in the case of kidneys, the existing law cannot be complied with following death, for example, due to a motor accident, which is the most common case,. Often the next of kin cannot be contacted by the registrar at the hospital in sufficient time. In any event, it would be callous and inhuman to expect the doctor in charge of the hospital to be obliged to telephone, say, a married woman as next of kin and say to her: "Your husband has just been killed and is lying in the South Blankshire Hospital. May we remove his kidneys?" Yet this is what is required under the existing law. Hundreds of relatives, given time for the initial shock of bereavement to wear off, would happily have consented later to the removal of the kidneys from the dead person. But, at the time of notification, they are too grief-stricken to make the decision within one hour, which is physiologically necessary for the kidney transplant. Thus, valuable, healthy, life-saving kidneys are denied to the surgeons for saving human life and diminishing the 3,000 deaths due to kidney diseases and disorders to which I have alluded. Moreover, the majority of our people today accept cremation as an alternative to interment. Cremation involves total destruction by fire of human remains. Most sudden deaths are subject to a coroner's autopsy, or post mortem, involving disfigurement of the body after death. Renal removal is carried out by a surgeon under conditions similar to those of an operation on a living person and involves relatively very minor disfigurement of the human remains.
It is too early yet to talk of legislative reforms for transplanation of major human blood fed organs, other than kidneys—I refer, of course, to such organs as hearts—until greater physiological

progress has been made in the massive problems of tissue rejection. The conference recently convened by the Minister of Health, under the chairmanship of Sir Hector MacLennan, President of the Royal Society of Medicine, will doubtless deal with human hearts, lungs, livers and transplants of other major organs which are, as yet, in an exploratory and embryonic state.
I believe that unilateral legislative amendment, at once, is desirable in the case of kidney transplantation, at present largely curtailed due to shortage of kidneys arising from the existing state of the law.
I reiterate that there would be adequate safeguards in the Bill proposed, for any religious or ethical objectors.
My proposed Bill, if successful, would condition public opinion for wider amending organ transplantation legislation later. If permission is given to bring in this Bill today, it will have all-party support. There will be 12 sponsors of the Bill, of whom seven are Tories, four are Labour, and one is Liberal. Of the 12 sponsors, six are doctors of medicine and six are lay members of this House.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), but I must ask the House to oppose the introduction of the Bill. It might be admirable in intention, but it is abhorrent in principle and would be in practice. The hon. Gentleman has told the House of the need for the Bill, and of the considerable support for it. My decision is personal, and unorganised, and has to stand or fall on its merits.
I shall be as brief as I can. It seems to me that there is a balance between the dignity and the respect of man, on the one hand, and the needs of science, of helping fellow men, on the other. This is a very fine balance indeed. I put it to the House that the human body is more than just flesh and blood, more than chemicals and substances, more than just a collection of spare parts. I agree that it should be the right and the duty of a man in good health and of sound mind to consider seriously and quietly how he wishes to dispose of his body after death. I suppose that by education and encouragement someone could decide in


life and in good health what he should do with his body after it has gone, whether he wants to donate his eyes, or kidneys, or the whole of his body. But this should be a conscious act. He should contract into this situation rather than have to contract out of it afterwards.
My whole objection to the Bill centres on the last few words,
unless there is reason to believe that the deceased during his lifetime had instructed otherwise.
In other words, someone must prove that he is not guilty rather than someone prove that he is. This Measure will be dangerous. The right to enter hospital without fear will be put in jeopardy. The young and the old, the ignorant or the ill-informed, those in prison and those in mental hospitals, will be denied the right of protection by this House. This right

should exist both in death and in life. The hon. Gentleman claims that he speaks for the living. Someone should put in a word for the dead. The human body is a thing of wonder and mystery. It is entitled to protection in life and in death. This would diminish the respect for it, and it would certainly diminish the protection that it should have in death as well as in life.

Sir Myer Galpern: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the custom to intervene in a Ten-Minute Rule Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 40.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[3.53 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnett, Joel
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maxwell, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bence, Cyril
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bessell, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Mendelson, J. J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Gower, Raymond
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bishop, E. S.
Cresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boardman, Tom
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Booth, Albert
Gurden, Harold
Molloy, William


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Halt-Davit, A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Newens, Stan


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Cordle, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Oswald, Thomas


Corfield, F. V.
Hordern, Peter
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Costain, A. P.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peyton, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pounder, Rafton


Dickens, James
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Doughty, Charles
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kirk, Peter
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eadie, Alex
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryan, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Longden, Gilbert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Loveys, W. H.
Sinclair, Sir George


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Snow, Julian


Farr, John
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)




Stodart, Anthony
Wallace, George
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wright, Esmond


Swingler, Stephen
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Tinn, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Sir Gerald Nabarro and


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. David Lane.




NOES


Baker, W. H. K.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orbach, Maurice


Bell, Ronald
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Biffen, John
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F,
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Crouch, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Urwin, T. W.


Ensor, David
Kenyon, Clifford
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Finch, Harold
Maude, Angus
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mawby, Ray
Younger, Hn. George


Gregory, Arnold
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon
Sir Myer Galpern.


Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir G. Nabarro, Col. Sir M. Stoddart-Scott, Dr. Bennett, Mr. Cronin, Dr. Broughton, Dr. John Dunwoody, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Pavitt, Mr. Lane, Sir D. Kaberry, Mr. Emery, and Mr. St. John-Stevas.

RENAL TRANSPLANTATION

Bill to permit removal from the body of a human person, duly certified as dead, any kidney or kidneys required for medical purposes, unless there is reason to believe that the deceased during his lifetime had instructed otherwise; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance and advice, Mr. Speaker, on what I consider to be a very important matter, touching the rights of all back benchers?
Last Thursday, when the Leader of the House announced the business, he said, in col. 661, that the first item for today would be the Vote on Account of the Civil Estimates and Defence Central Estimates. This is the business which we understood would be taken first and it was on my Party Whip as the first item of business. Then, suddenly this morning we read on the Order Paper that the Order had been changed, so that this Vote cannot be discussed at all. I would remind the House that this is a

Vote of £3,240 million, which we as back benchers are now precluded from discussing. It might as well be water going under the bridge.
I would like to know from you, Mr. Speaker—perhaps I may remind you that you, too, were once a back bencher—what protection back benchers have against their rights to discuss this matter being taken away. Also, by what authority does the Leader of the House change the business of the House without advising the House that he intends to do so? This is an infringement of the ancient rights of back benchers. Many of us came here prepared to speak on this and are now denied the opportunity. What remedy have we, Mr. Speaker? Will you guide me?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Further to that point of order. I, too, like my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), was interested in this subject, and I went to see the Clerk of the House yesterday afternoon to confirm my view of the Order Paper that it would be first business today. He confirmed what I saw on the Order Paper in the Lobby—which I think is put there by your authority, Mr. Speaker—that it would be the first business. I then asked him whether one would be entitled to speak on it and he said, "Certainly." On that, I spent two hours in the Library last night going over all the Votes on Account for the last four or five years, since 1964: I satisfied myself that this one is by far the biggest ever and that it represents a rise of over £1,000 million since 1964. I, too, was prepared to speak on this subject today.
I now find that if it is brought up at 10 o'clock tonight, no back bencher can raise anything, and that if it is put forward to Monday evening, as I gather it might be, it would then fall under the guillotine when again no back bencher could speak to it. It seems to me that, on constitutional grounds, there is a real grievance here, since we will have no opportunity of raising grievances before voting Supply—an opportunity which we should have. Therefore, I raise this with you, Mr. Speaker, very seriously on behalf of myself and other hon. Members who are interested.

Mr. J. T. Price: Further to that point of order. A grant of Supply of this magnitude is certainly important, particularly to back benchers, but if we are discussing this in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Price: I am not his keeper or his batman.
If we are discussing what my right hon. Friend has done, is it in order for hon. Gentlemen to suggest that this is due to some fault on his part? This is a Supply day, within the determination of Her Majesty's Opposition. A great deal of criticism has been made here and elsewhere of consensus politics, and since the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is shooting his arrows at the Leader of the House, I want to know whether this is another aspect of consensus politics. What responsibility do the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip bear for the change of business? These are fair points, Mr. Speaker, and if you would not mind ruling on them all at the same time, I should be obliged.

Mr. Speaker: I can rule only on the point of order. I must point out, first, that the order of items of business appearing on Whips which are circulated among Members of Parliament does not come within my purview. The Chair knows nothing officially of such nefarious documents.
The arrangement of the business for today, since it is a Supply day, is in the hands of the Opposition. It is not unknown, from time to time, for the order of business and, indeed, the business itself as announced on a Thursday to be

changed between the announcement on Thursday and the appearance of the Order Paper on any particular morning. It is inconvenient to hon. Members if, like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), they have been to the Library and prepared a speech which they cannot make today. I can only state the position factually.
The Vote on Account is, roughly speaking, an instalment payment. All the items coming within the Vote on Account may be discussed in various forms at various stages during the passage of the Estimates and Supply through the house. I have looked up the recent record. It is not usual to stage a debate on the Vote on Account, although it is debatable.
As to the change which has made it impossible for a debate to occur today, I understand that up to yesterday the Vote on Account item preceded the Motion which the House is about to discuss. The result of changing the order of business means that it will be impossible, if the debate on the foot-and-mouth disease Motion lasts until 10 o'clock, to debate the Vote on Account; it will be impossible to take any item of Supply after 10 o'clock. There still remains Monday, which will be the last day on which the Vote on Account can be debated this year. As to whether it should be put in a position on the Order Paper to enable it to be debated, that would be a matter for the Opposition. Mr. Speaker has no control over the Order Paper. He is the slave of the Order Paper, as he is the slave of the House. I have some sympathy with the points of order that have been raised, but they are not matters for me.

Sir C. Osborne: Further to my point of order. While I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—even though I have no remedy—are we to take it that on any Supply day the business previously announced by the Leader of the House may be altered subsequently, meaning that the right hon. Gentleman's announcements have no worth at all?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in Parliament to know that there are frequently changes in the order of business between what is announced on a Thursday and what transpires during the week.

Mr. English: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), would you agree that it would be better and that it would save the time of the House if the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Chief Whip retreated from the Chamber and discussed the matter together?

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (MEAT IMPORTS)

4.13 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I beg to move,
That this House, having regard to the disastrous effect of the recent foot-and-mouth disease epidemic on large sectors of our rural economy, deplores Her Majesty's Government's decision to lift the ban on imports of beef from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic before the Northumberland Committee of Inquiry has reported; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to request that Committee to produce an urgent interim Report on the degree of risk attaching to imported meat in the light of the experiences of recent months.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to announce that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Godber: When the Minister of Agriculture made his statement in the House on Monday of last week he invited us, before we commented loudly, carefully to read the report which he had submitted in the form of a White Paper. We did that. It is as a result of reading it that we have tabled the Motion, because we cannot feel that the report justifies the Minister in the announcement he made to the House last week, and I shall seek to show why. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper, which applies most particularly to the Motion, states:
'The only type of virus isolated in this epidemic was O1 It is known that this type of virus is present in South America, but it has not been possible to ascertain the situation regarding foot-and-mouth disease in sheep and the prevalent types of virus in the area which supplies Establishment 1408. It is known from returns made by the Argentine authorities that foot-and-mouth disease occurs in the exporting area concerned but the returns do not distinguish between cattle and sheep.
That was the really effective paragraph of the document, before the Chief Veterinary Officer went in to give his conclusion about the recent epidemic. It is quite clear from this that, from the area concerned, there are both cattle and


sheep, and it is equally clear that there is foot-and-mouth in relation to both.
In his statement to the House the Minister said that he would send his report to the Northumberland Committee for its consideration. He then indicated that the ban on mutton and lamb would be continued but that it had been decided that imports other than mutton and lamb could be resumed from 15th April; and it is for that that we are censuring him and the Government, for we believe that there is no way in which the Government could clearly distinguish between the degree of risk coming from one and the other.
It is abundantly clear that the Minister has departed from what he has alleged to be his policy throughout this epidemic; namely, that he was following the advice of his vets. He cannot say, in the light of the report from his Chief Veterinary Officer, that the decision to continue the ban on mutton and lamb, and not on beef, was directly the result of the advice of his vets.
It is not sufficient merely to say that in this particular case the primary cause appeared to come from mutton because it is clear that the disease is endemic in both cattle and sheep. This is the point which we must clearly establish in this debate and to which the Minister has a duty to respond if we are to understand in any degree the Government's purpose in making the distinction which they have made. It would seem, from Press reports at the weekend, that the right hon. Gentleman's own veterinary staff was actively opposed to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman announced in the House last week.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): Really?

Mr. Godber: He shows surprise. In that case, I draw to his attention a report quoted in Monday's Financial Times, and given in much greater detail in the Sunday Telegraph, and I hope that he will comment expressly on that because Mr. William McCall, General Secretary of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, has, we are told, written to the right hon. Gentleman. This Institution contains among its members many of the Department's veterinary staff. Apparently they stated in this letter that they viewed with

dismay and concern the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to lift the ban and that the chance of another epidemic of similar proportions was causing the Institution's members very grave concern. I emphasise that among the members of the Institution are members of the right hon. Gentleman's veterinary staff. The Minister should, therefore, tell us clearly whether the advice given to him by his veterinary staff was that there was a grave risk of disease if he lifted the ban in the way that he proposes to do. This is the first issue on which I ask the Minister to make a clear statement.
The Government have made this completely arbitrary decision—to continue the ban on mutton and lamb—when the import of mutton and lamb represents only a relatively small proportion of the total amount of South American meat coming to this country. I will give some figures, in round thousands of tons, to prove the point. In 1967, 18,000 tons of mutton and lamb came to Britain from South America, while 101,000 tons of South American beef came in, more than five times as much beef as mutton and lamb. This is proved by the Government's figures of imports during 1967. If more than five times as much beef as mutton and lamb came in, would the Minister deny that this must have meant that there was at least five times the risk of infection from beef as there was from mutton and lamb?
After announcing the ban on 4th December, the Minister said in this House:
These arrangements are temporary. They will last until the present emergency has been brought under control and will, in any event, be reviewed in three months' time, if still in operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 999.]
He reminded us later that it was intended as a temporary ban and he appeared to think that some of us were unreasonable in calling on him to maintain the ban in being. This was the first time in this problem of foot-and-mouth-disease, which has occurred in greater or lesser degree for some years, when we have had a ban put on beef and mutton coming from South America.
In putting on the ban the Minister was in effect saying to the House and the country three distinct things. Firstly, he was saying that at the moment when


he put the ban on the country was faced with a unique situation with the appalling epidemic, which at that time was still spreading rapidly and causing him, the House and the country, grave concern. Secondly, he was reminding us that there was a likelihood that imported meat was the source of that epidemic. If he did not mean that, there was no point in putting on the ban. Thirdly, he was saying that he had assessed the effect of such a ban on meat supplies and felt that a ban of that character was tolerable in relation to the housewife and consumers generally.
Those three things he must have established in his mind before he decided to institute the ban. I wish to make clear that neither I nor any of my colleagues had at any stage before 4th December pressed the Minister to institute a ban. He referred to this the other day in the House. We had not done that because neither my colleagues nor I could be in possession of the facts which enabled the Minister to make the decision he made. I thought it would be irresponsible to call for a ban at that time without having the knowledge and the facts in front of us. But, once the right hon. Gentleman had taken the decision, an entirely new situation was created, particularly in so far as the second of these three matters was concerned. That was that imported meat was the source of this outbreak, and he also believed that meat supplies would continue to be at least reasonably adequate.
He had taken the decision and it created an entirely new situation. I think his assessment in regard to supplies of meat was a fair one and the price of meat, which had risen sharply during the early weeks of the epidemic, levelled off. The putting on of the ban did not materially increase the price of meat to the consumer. Figures I have looked up show that in the period from the beginning of the outbreak to 4th December, the price rose by 35 per cent. and thereafter by a further 9 per cent. After that it dropped in some degree. The rise was most pronounced for beef, but for some other meats it dropped considerably in succeeding weeks. There were adequate supplies of meat of one kind or another available. This continued to be the case. Therefore the Minister cannot say that

the need was desperate to reintroduce the importation of meat for the figures do not bear that out in any degree.
As to the second of the reasons, it is quite clear from the White Paper that imported meat appears to have been the source of the epidemic. But the main reason for taking the decision must have been the first one I gave, the terrifying speed with which the disease had spread at that time. This was the issue which was causing everyone in the industry the gravest concern at the beginning of December. Fortunately, the position has now very much improved, I understand that by today we should be clear of foot-and-mouth disease throughout the country. This is something we can all be very pleased about.
All these reasons are as valid today as they were at the time when the ban was put on. They are as valid because they are in no way vitiated by the Minister's Chief Veterinary Officer's report and they cannot be vitiated until the Northumberland Committee has examined the issues and been able to report to the Minister. Only then could the Minister take the sort of decision he purported to take last week that it was possible to differentiate between one source of infection and another.
Because we feel that the Government have failed in this regard we put forward this Motion. We of course wish the Northumberland Committee well in its endeavours. My regret is that the Minister did not establish it earlier. In the debate on 4th December he told us that he would establish it. At that time we could well understand that under the pressures to which he was subject he could not set up the Committee then, but from early January onward we were repeatedly asking why some such Committee was not set up. He has lost very valuable time in this way. Had he set up the Committee in January he could have been in a position to receive an interim report before 15th April, which he has stated as the date on which he will admit imports again. The Minister's dilatoriness in this regard has caused the difficulty in regard to a report from the Committee.
We of the Conservative Party urged him in a statement on 23rd January, not to lift the ban until such time as he had a report from the Committee which he


was to set up. We said at that time, let the Government at once set up the independent Committee which they have promised to look into every aspect both of the epidemic and slaughter policy and possible alternatives. Let them not relax their present restrictions on imports until that Committee has reported. That was the line we took and we still believe it was right. We were supported in that view by almost all the organisations connected with agriculture, the N.F.U., the C.L.A. and the vets themselves, who took the view very strongly, as also did many people connected with the countryside. Many of my hon. Friends will have received letters, as I have, from such organisations as Women's Institutes who feel very strongly about the needs of the countryside. My county council has written to me urging this line.
Coming nearer home, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would like to confirm that the Agriculture Group of his own back-benchers have urged him to follow this course and are also opposed to lifting the ban on the importation of beef. It would interest us very much if he would tell us the attitude of his own back-benchers. I shall gladly give way to him if he will do so.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I can tell the right hon. Member straight away that there is a body of back-benchers on the Government side of the House, of whom I am one, who want the ban to be lifted.

Mr. Godber: I fully expected that that was the view of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) because he has expressed it before, but it was not the hon. Member whom I had particularly in mind. If some of his hon. Friends are able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, they may enlighten us on their view, if the Minister does not want to do so.
Why did this universal demand come from the whole countryside? It was the sheer size of the epidemic which brought the slaughter policy almost to the brink of collapse. I do not think that I use too strong wards when I say that at the end of November, when there were as many as 81 separate outbreaks in a day, the policy must have been very near collapse. It was fortunate that after that we saw a

gradual diminution. Against that background, the Minister took the decision to impose the ban.
It was because of this that people have seen the really shocking effects in the countryside in the areas affected. The Minister will at least agree that there have been very serious losses far outside the scale of the compensation he has been able to give. The question of consequential losses is one of the questions which I imagine that the Northumberland Committee will study. The latest figure which we have been given of the Government's expense under compensation is about £36 million. Estimates have appeared from various different sources to the effect that the total loss to the countryside has been certainly double that figure and could well be over £100 million. There is no compensation of any kind for all these additional consequential losses.
Therefore, if the Government take a risk in allowing in additional supplies, they are not merely putting a risk on the Exchequer in the shape of liability for additional compensation. They are also putting a risk on people who are in no position themselves to determine the extent of the risk or to do anything about it but who, under the existing system, will yet have to bear the loss themselves.
This is an aspect which I do not believe has been sufficiently weighed in the Government's minds. If there is not to be full compensation covering all the consequential losses, and if there are to be epidemics of this degree of magnitude, the Government are seeking to impose on people in the countryside something which will create the very greatest difficulties. If it is not recognised that the present policy is fair and realistic, there will not be full suport for it. This is one of the things which the Northumberland Committee must examine and report on before this renewed degree of risk is imposed upon the countryside.
The real, basic question is: was this recent epidemic a single freak occasion when various factors combined to bring about such an exposive spread of the disease, or is it not more likely that this is an indication that this particular strain of the virus has developed a degree of resistance to control which has made our defence measures all out of date? This is the issue to which the Minister must


direct himself and which the Northumberland Committee must consider as a matter of urgency.
Until the answer to this question is known, it is the height of folly deliberately to expose our livestock to infection again. Those of us—and there are many in the House—who throughout our lives have been dealing, on our own farms and elsewhere, with combating pests and disease can all recall the way in which a known and trusted measure of control can become ineffective because the organism concerned develops a degree of immunity to the control measures adopted against it. This has happened again and again. It will be recognised as something which happens, both in regard to insect pests and in regard to viruses and to bacteriological infection as well.
We are entitled to ask: has this happened now with this O1 strain of foot-and mouth disease, which in the past has not shown itself as one which spreads with particular rapidity? Here I call in aid a quotation from a most interesting document which the Farmers Weekly produced last week called "The Reckoning" and reprinted from the Farmers Weekly of 1st March. I quote from the document an interview which the periodical presumably had with Dr. Brooksby, the Director of the Minister's own Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright.

Mr. Peart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Godlier: I am sorry. It used to be under the Ministry, even if it is not now. At any rate, it is the Government's Institute. I am sure that the Minister will accept that Dr. Brooksby is one of the greatest experts in the world on this subject. The report says:
Though he would not commit himself, Dr. Brooksby suggested that this special strain of the O1 virus might have developed as a direct result of the vaccination policy of many countries. If this is so, it is quite possible that we will get another dose of it. And if it really has this high spreading power, we might not spot it until it has spread in a similar fashion to the 1967 outbreak.
That is what Dr. Brooksby believes is a possibility. He is quoted as saying this:
This is the absolute crux of the decision on future policy. We will have to decide whether to legislate for this happening again or not.
The report continues:
That is the situation. It looks as if we may be dealing with a new strain of the virus

capable of infecting large numbers of animals before being observed. Dr. Brooksby is not alone in suggesting this. At least one other eminent virologist also believes it to be true. And it fits all the facts of the 1967 outbreak.
If they are right, we may be forced into a policy of compulsory vaccination despite any argument raised against it.
This is surely the strongest indictment of the announcement the Minister made that could possibly appear. It has the authority of Dr. Brooksby behind it and, given the circumstances of this particular epidemic, it would appear to the ordinary man in the street that this could clearly be the reason. Until the Northumberland Committee has been able to see all the evidence, the Minister has no right to take a decision in regard to it. This is where he has failed, and failed so miserably, in his decision.
Until this aspect is satisfactorily answered, I do not believe that we can afford any risk of renewed infection. It must be recognised that much has been done in South American countries in recent years in regard to vaccination policy. Probably there is still much scope for increased vaccination, but there was a time when there was not much going on. However, to the extent that vaccination has increased, it may have increased the degree of temporary immunity in relation to an outbreak. This could eventually result in what the Report of the Gowers Committee described as "masked" infection. Masked infection is probably the most dangerous spread of all, because it is not observed until it has become well established. It is that, allied with what Dr. Brooksby has said, which shows how dangerous is the policy which the Minister has now adopted.
The Minister's decision is that we cannot afford this continued risk from mutton and lamb but that we can afford it from beef. If that is not complete nonsense, I do not know what is. How can the degree of infection as between the two classes of meat be distinguished? Here I want to ask the Minister a specific question which I would be grateful if he would answer later, because much depends on this point. Before the outbreak which spread so rapidly, there was an outbreak in the Stratford-on-Avon area, an outbreak which led later to a prosecution. The Minister will be well aware of this one. It occurred only


about a month or so before the major outbreak.
My question is: is it true that the Minister's own vets not only confirmed that outbreak as being O1—in other words, he same strain—but also confirmed that it came from the South American beef? Can the Minister confirm that that was so? If indeed that outbreak: came from South American beef, the Minister has not been telling the House the whole facts in regard to the matter. He has told us that he believes the source of the later outbreak to have been mutton and lamb; but, if a month previously there was an outbreak which was traced back to South American beef, is it not the Minister's duty to tell the House about it? He should tell us precisely what was his vets' report in regard to the Stratford-on-Avon outbreak. I must ask him to do that when he speaks.
I have already pointed out that five times more beef is coming in than mutton and lamb. Therefore, there is five times the degree of risk because of that. Yet the Amendment refers to
the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve the safeguards".
We shall want to know how the Minister proposes to improve the safeguards if he is letting in by far the bulkiest source of infection. He must show that there is not the degree of infection in regard to beef.
Is the Minister saying that, because in this one instance it happened to be lamb—or appeared to be lamb, because it is obviously circumstantial—beef imports are safe? We want an emphatic answer from him. Does he deny that the Gowers Report drew no distinction between the two? We shall not know what the Northumberland Committee's view is for some time yet.
On 8th December, in a Written Answer—it is c. 421 of HANSARD—the Minister gave the sources of infection in respect of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease since 1954. He set them out in a table, from which it appears that contact with imported meat and bones accounted for 30 per cent. of the initial outbreaks, and swill, probably from the same source, for another 20 per cent. Thus, at least 50 per cent. of all the primary outbreaks were traced back to

what must have been imported meat or bones in one form or another.
Moreover, a considerable proportion of the other outbreaks were not traced back at all. Therefore, if at least 50 per cent. were traced to imported meat or swill, it means that a very large proportion must have originated from that source. If they did originate from meat, does the Minister say that they originated only from mutton and lamb? He cannot say that, and he knows it.
Since we say that it is absurd to distinguish between beef and mutton, it is fair to face the other question: how was it that, when we were in office, we distinguished between beef and mutton, on the one hand, and pork, on the other? Mr. Christopher Soames, when he was Minister, banned pig meat. I accept that. If I had to substantiate my case, I have to establish that there is a distinction between pork, on the one hand, and beef and mutton, on the other. I do so by reference to the Ministry's own Press hand-out at the time when Mr. Soames made his announcement on 15th November, 1960, It said:
At recognised frigorificos there are facilities for post and antemortem inspection. This system of control has proved effective with cattle and sheep, but not for pigs".
I emphasise those words. They are at the centre of the argument.
The movement of pigs is much less easy to control than the movement of cattle and sheep, because pigs are raised in smaller numbers by more scattered producers.
That was the reason why pig meat was distinguished in that way at that time.
Further, there was a Report produced by the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, which sent out a special mission to South America from June to August 1958. I shall quote a short passage from the Report. Incidentally, the mission was led by Mr. J. N. Ritchie, who at that time was Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, a very well known and respected veterinary officer. The Report said:
There is little doubt that pigs may constitute a problem in the epidemiology of the disease which is not fully appreciated by the authorities. In the course of visits to a large market in Buenos Aires there was evidence of past infection in pigs which were now showing long standing separation of the horn of the hooves.


In other words, they had had the disease and could well be said still to be carrying it.
That is what that independent Commission said. Thus, not only did the Ministry's own Press hand-out at that time clearly distinguish between the risk from pigs, on the one hand, and from beef and mutton on the other, but the independent Report of the European Commission made the same point.
Incidentally, there is another sentence in the Report which may interest the Minister:
There would seem to be less risk of the sheep creating a problem, since very boadly they are maintained on separate ranges from cattle and many are in Patagonia where there is apparently no disease".
That is what is said about sheep, yet it is against sheep that the Minister distinguishes and he proposes to allow beef in. That comment about sheep appears in the course of a long passage dealing with the risk in relation to cattle, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to refute the Report in any way.
Therefore, one can establish that it was right and proper at the time to distinguish pork but that one cannot distinguish between the two types of ruminant animals. Pigs are normally kept housed, while cattle and sheep are on free range. This is the point. It is absurd to distinguish between the two. It is impossible to say that there is a serious risk from mutton and lamb but that there is none from beef. Such a position is untenable.
Now, a word about the problem of our trade with South America and with the Argentine in particular. All of us in the House wish to see that trade continue, and we certainly do not want it to be harmed by what happens in relation to foot-and-mouth disease. But we are entitled to say to our friends in South America that there are degrees of risk which they ought not to expect us to tolerate in relation to these imports. It is really for them to ensure that the meat which comes here is in such a condition that it cannot create a risk. While we want to see this trade carry on, and while we have always, up to now, had an open-door policy, our friends in the United States have for many years strictly controlled the import of South American

meat, allowing in only cooked meat. Yet their trade with South America continues unabated, and we hope that it will continue to do so.
There is no reason why we alone should accept risks which will mean a heavy burden to the taxpayer and to our farming community. Here, I call in aid what was said by one of the most distinguished farming Members of the House a few years ago, the late Lord Hurd, who spent a lot of time studying this problem and who paid a number of visits to the Argentine. In an Adjournment debate which he initiated on 5th March, 1958, at the end of his speech, in which he urged that more should be done in the Argentine to prevent spread of the disease, he said:
It comes to this. We cannot afford any longer to be complacent about the foot-and-mouth disease infection which we get from South America or the continent of Europe. It is a curse to our livestock industry and a heavy burden on our taxpayers. I believe that we should take Argentina firmly by the arm and say, It is in your interest, as well as in ours, that you should tackle foot-and-mouth disease more effectively. We realise that it is a very big problem for you, and we will help you all we can with technical advice. But we must expect you, if we are to continue to be a good customer of yours, to do more to gain a clean bill of health in the next five years than you have done in the last 30 years since the Bledisloe Agreement was signed.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 1302.]
I thought that very fair comment. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Argentine authorities have tried since then to improve the situation by more vaccination. But they still have a long way to go. It is for this reason that we must consider the needs of our own people, and we must ask for adequate safeguards, particularly if a new type of virus has emerged which is more infective than before. This is the real seriousness of our charge against the Government for the decision they have taken.
I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side would wish to have a ban imposed or retained for reasons which are specious on health grounds or designed merely to cloak a protectionist objective. But there are many on the benches opposite as well as on this side who think that the Government are taking what The Times described in a leading article the other day as an "unjustified risk". It is still not too late for them to have second thoughts. The ban is not


due to come off before 15th April. Let them extend it till the Northumberland Committee has produced an interim report, and let the matter be considered again in the light of such a report.
Our charge today is not so much against the Minister himself as against the Government as a whole. Left to himself, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman would have retained the ban; but, as on other issues, he has been overborne by his colleagues. The charge against him is merely the charge of weakness. The charge against the Government as a whole is of taking a completely unjustified risk with the future of Britain's agriculture. For that reason, we shall condemn them in the Lobby tonight.

4.50 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'taking note of the Report on the origin of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic of 1967–68. approves the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve the safeguards against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into this country'.
In deploying his case the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has put questions to me which I shall deal with as I proceed. I have carefully noted some of the points he raised.
Hon. Members opposite have chosen to devote their Supply Day to our decision on meat imports. I am not complaining about this, even though there was a difficulty earlier about what we should debate today. But this choice, in a week following the Annual Farm Price Review, clearly implies that they can find little to oppose in the Review award. I appreciate this compliment from the Opposition. [Interruption.] I shall certainly defend the Review down in the South-West, or in any part of the country.
I consider this a still greater compliment when I recall that in an article in the Daily Telegraph last Wednesday the right hon. Gentleman wrote that:
For farmers, this afternoon's statement by the Minister of Agriculture about the Annual Price Review is the most important announcement of the year.
He wrote that after I had already made my statement about meat imports. I

shall be interested to know why there has been a change, why the Opposition have taken a whole day of Supply on this subject, and not concentrated on the Review. I challenge hon. Members opposite to debate the Price Review. I believe that today was picked specifically for that, but that they knew in the end that the Review could not be criticised in the circumstances.
I fully understand the concern expressed in the countryside and elsewhere about the decision to revert on 15th April to our normal import policy for beef. As Minister of Agriculture and of Food, I could not be isolated from the expressions of opinion which have been forcibly put forward on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to point out today the anxiety in the countryside. I also know full well the shock which the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease has caused in the countryside and the fortitude of the farming community and others in opposing it. I have already paid a tribute to the effort made to master the epidemic and to the co-operation of many people, including those who came from abroad to help us. The right hon. Gentleman was right to stress this and also to stress the concern about the decision I have taken in view of the scale of the epidemic. I understand this, and accept it.
I should like now, however, to explain the background and to emphasise the value of the measures we have taken to reduce the risk of a recurrence of the disease. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from what I said on 4th December, when I announced the temporary ban on meat imports from certain countries. I then made quite clear the reasoning behind that emergency action. The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) nods his head, I think with approval. Whether or not hon. Members agree with me, I think that I then explained clearly the reasoning. I said:
Hon. Members know that our veterinary resources are now fully stretched in fighting the present epidemic. For this reason, a new primary outbreak elsewhere could be very dangerous.
The Government are, therefore, making temporary changes forthwith in the arrangements for importing meat into Great Britain in order to reduce, as far as possible,"—


I stress that—
the risk of any new primary outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease while the present emergency is being brought under control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 998.]
Already the recollection of the severe strain on our veterinary service at that time may be fading. But, for me, it was a vital question at that time of emergency. [HON. MEMBERS: "It still is."] Hon. Members must listen. This was a period of great emergency, when all our veterinary resources were stretched to the limit in fighting the heavy concentration of outbreaks in the West Midlands. The hon. Gentleman said that it still is an emergency, but the situation is quite different now from what it was then. Of course, we do not want it to happen again. I am merely stating the fact that our veterinary service was then stretched and for that reason I took the view that a new primary outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease elsewhere—for example, in Scotland or the dense livestock areas of the South-West—would have been disastrous.
I had made arrangements for the use of vaccine, if required. Hon. Members will remember the demands at that time in the Press, and from certain other quarters, that we should introduce a vaccination policy and not continue with the slaughter policy which we were following. In the end we received widespread support for continuing with our policy to eradicate the disease by slaughter. I had the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House and I pay tribute to that.
The temporary ban on meat imports was a supporting measure in our effort to maintain the slaughter policy and to bring the major epidemic under control. I was not pressed by the right hon. Member for Grantham to make the changes in our meat import arrangements which I made in December. In no way did he ask me to do it. I can only assume that, if he had had responsibility, he would not have introduced that measure. [Interruption.] He never advocated that or even praised me for the decision. On 30th January, when speaking of the ban, he said:
I did not press the Minister to put it on in the first place …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1175.]

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have listened very much to what I said today. I dealt with that point very specifically. He will be able to see in HANSARD that I said that without the knowledge that only the Minister could have it would have been irresponsible for me to press for such a ban. It is unjust of him to say that because I did not press for it had I been in his position, with the knowledge he had, I should not have imposed the ban.

Mr. Peart: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is now rationalising a remark he made at that time. He said this. He is now trying to put another gloss on it, trying to suggest that he would have said something different if he had had the information. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I cannot and will not withdraw. I shall certainly read very carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Godber: Disgraceful.

Mr. Peart: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shouting, "Disgraceful". That is not an answer to argument or logic. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman made this statement. It is on the record, and he cannot deny it. Indeed, it would be quite consistent with the policy right hon. Members opposite followed when in office. I remind the House that the changes in our import arrangements for meat were designed to reduce as far as possible the risk of a new primary outbreak of the disease while the emergency was being brought under control. Hon. Members should not be surprised, therefore, that the Government have decided not to continue the ban on all forms of meat, since the emergency is now under control.
I have been asked what the new factors are. The report of my Chief Veterinary Officer has been mentioned. What are the new circumstances which led us to take the action on 4th March and which we ask the House to approve today? We received the report from the Chief Veterinary Officer on the origin of the tragic epidemic, and I have made it available to the House. I am sure that those who have studied it will agree that there was a new factor which the Government were bound to consider when they came to review meat import arrangements.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman will not put an argument by making remarks from a seated position. I repeat that no doubt those who have read the report carefully will agree that there was a new factor. In order to deal with this situation, one must carefully examine the implications of that report. As I have explained to the House, the report contains circumstantial evidence pointing to a consignment of South American lamb as being the probable cause of the first outbreak of the disease at Oswestry last October.
In these circumstances, the Government thought it right to impose a continuing ban on mutton and lamb, including their offals, from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic, the ban to continue until the Northumberland Committee has reported. We took action as a result of the new facts before us. I told the House that action would be taken and that we would have to bear in mind the report.
In the circumstances, we believed it right to continue the ban on mutton and lamb, and that continuation has received more publicity than the other measures we took. But it represents only one-third of the action plan. I have been chided about the lamb. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is virtually unimportant and he gave figures. I am advised that recognition of the disease in sheep is generally much more difficult than in cattle. There is, therefore, more risk that a case in sheep might go undetected and consequently that meat containing the virus might pass into the trade.
It is misleading to talk about tonnages of meat. The ban on mutton and lamb from countries where the disease is endemic has made a very large reduction in the number of susceptible animals in our meat supplies from those countries. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about this aspect. In 1966, for example, we imported the product of about one million sheep—20,000 tons of meat at 50 lambs to a ton—and the product of just over 500,000 cattle—125,000 tons of meat at four cattle to a ton—from these countries. We did have about 1½ million potential purveyors of the virus going to the slaughterhouse. We shall now have

only about 500,000. It is wrong to say that lamb can be dismissed and I am surprised that this has been suggested.
As I have said, the continuing ban represents only one-third of the action plan. The second part of our action concerns the veterinary safeguards. I would have thought that I would carry the whole House with me in this. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the letter of Lord Hurd, whom I knew well. I do not disagree with what Lord Hurd said when he made those remarks a considerable time ago. Indeed, now it is important that we should have the proper veterinary safeguards.
I wish there had been some mention by the right hon. Gentleman of our sending of the veterinary mission. Beef was not called into question by the Report of the C.V.O. and we did not believe that there was any new ground for changing our existing import policy on this product. But the scale and cost of the epidemic have been very great. We are taking measures, therefore, to improve the safeguards against any risk of importing the virus and we shall be holding veterinary discussions with our supplying countries. We considered it sensible, in view of the invitation from the Argentine Republic, that these discussions should be carried out by a technical mission. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) is not here because he is in South America preparing the way for the discussions. I hope that every right hon. and hon. Member will wish him well and his mission success.
We have agreed with the Argentine Government that the task of the technical mission will be to carry out a review, jointly with Argentine officials, of the existing arrangements covering the export of meat to the United Kingdom. The object will be to revise the arrangements agreed in 1928, in the light of technical developments which have taken place since then, and to incorporate any possible improvement in the present safeguards. This is the right way to go about it.
Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of trade between our two countries and of our trade with South America. He said, quite fairly, that we wish to continue this trade. On


the other hand, he stressed the importance of safeguards in this country in relation to meat establishments, etc., and other aspects of the meat industry, and how important it is that we should ourselves have high standards. I entirely agree. This is the first major attempt set in train since the 1920s by any Government.

Mr. Michael Noble: We appreciate the importance of the steps the right hon. Gentleman is talking about, but does not he realise that if beef is to come into this country in the middle of April it will have been loaded in ships within the next week or ten days, so that nothing of what he is saying will have any effect on these consignments?

Mr. Peart: I hope the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that we have veterinary officers out there already and that we are in discussion. In the circumstances, we have acted very quickly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too quickly."] I am waiting for the right hon. Member for Grantham to say that I have been dilatory. I do not see how I have acted too quickly in relation to the mission. I announced it the other day and I thought I had the approval of all right hon. and hon. Members. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East had the good wishes of everyone on both sides of the House in his mission. I hope that he will succeed and that his visit will enable us to get ahead with the main technical discussions, not only between ourselves and the Argentine Republic but also with Uruguay, Brazil and other supplying countries in South America.
The Argentine Government have suggested that it would be helpful if Argentine experts came here for discussions about our methods of investigating the origins of outbreaks in this country and we are very willing to receive them. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East has reported to me from Buenos Aires that there is agreement on these matters. I am glad that this is so, and I look forward to useful co-operation. I am anxious that the technical mission should do a thorough job in assessing what improvements are possible, but I am also anxious that any improvement should come into effect quickly. I am asking it to report to me as soon as it can.
Let me turn now to the Northumberland Committee.

Mr. Godber: rose—

Mr. Peart: Is it to do with the technical mission?

Mr. Godber: No.

Mr. Peart: I had better continue [Interruption.] I am always courteous in giving way, but I hope that hon. Members will allow me to proceed. I want to answer a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, who talked about the delay in setting up the Northumberland Committee. I would remind him that the Gowers Committee was appointed ten months after the epidemic. The epidemic started on 14th November, 1951, and the Committee was appointed on 11th September, 1952. The Northumberland Committee which I have set up was appointed four months after the beginning of the present outbreak, 25th October, 1967.
I resent this charge of delay and dilatoriness. We have acted quickly and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. When he was a member of the Conservative Administration, and his Government set up the Committee of Inquiry, it was considerably longer—months and months—before they did so. I immediately set up the Northumberland Committee, and I believe that the choice of its members has been widely accepted.
I turn now to the third part of our action. This is necessarily in the longer term. The Committee will have to consider such questions as the strains of virus; whether the present policy is out of date; whether we should have a vaccination policy; and whether it is impossible to operate a slaughter policy in view of new strains. These are not matters for hon. Members on both sides of the House to be dogmatic about now. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a very eminent scientist, Dr. Brooksby, one of our leading experts. There are many opinions about these questions in the veterinary and scientific world. I beg hon. Members not to be too dogmatic. This is something which has to be carefully examined by a body such as the Northumberland Committee, which may come to certain conclusions.
I have appointed this Committee to look at the whole policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. The task is considerable. The hon. Member for City of Chester has indicated that he will be making many submissions, and no doubt many hon. Members will have points of view about the control of the epidemic. The Committee will have to consider submissions from individuals as well as organisations. Its report will certainly enable us to look again at the position in the light of its considered views.
It is a small Committee, and I know that it realises the urgency of the matter. Clearly it will want to produce a thorough report and the House will realise that it is difficult to fix a target date before it holds its first meeting tomorrow. Hon. Members and others have referred to the possibility of an interim report. I was asked about this by the Leader of the Opposition when I made my statement. I know that some hon. Members will press me on this. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and others feel that they ought to do so. The Committee is free to make such a report. I have always stressed that it must be independent of Government. It must be free to do what it wishes, to make its choice and to come to certain conclusions. There must be no pressure from the Executive. The Committee is free to make such a report.
It must have time to study the whole problem and decide how to approach its job. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am being frank here, that the Committee may find it difficult to isolate its assessment of the animal risk from meat imports from its findings on the best policy for controlling foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain. For these reasons I do not think it right to press the Committee on this point. I know that some hon. Members will say that I should, but this is an independent Committee. No doubt it will bear in mind the views of hon. Members and their speeches in this House. It will be for it to decide whether to publish an early, interim report. It would be wrong for me to pressurise it on this. I have no doubt that it will take account

of the feelings of hon. Members. This is the right and sensible approach.
As I have said, at the invitation of the Argentine Government a veterinary mission is going to Buenos Aires for technical discussions about the improvement of safeguards. We expect it to visit Uruguay and Brazil. The implementation of its conclusions need not await the Committee's Report. I will now give way to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the Minister. The point I sought to make dealt not with the technical mission, but with a point mentioned before that. The Minister dealt with beef but he did not really spend any time on this. and I asked him one very specific question with regard to the Stratford outbreak. I wanted to make sure that we had a clear answer on this.

Mr. Peart: I am coming to the whole question of our general attitude and why beef has not been included, and to the outbreak at Stratford. Hon. Members opposite can claim credit for the report of the Gowers Committee. I hardly need to remind the House that the meat import arrangements which this Government took over from the previous administration were operated by hon. Members opposite after they had had responsibility for considering action on the Gowers Report.
I hope that hon. Members who are critical of the present Government and of my attitude on this will read the Gowers Report carefully. Gowers pointed out the risks, talked of imports from South America, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not act in any way. I would like to know why. They must have considered the Gowers Report. It was a major Committee report. Gowers came to certain conclusions, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite did absolutely nothing about them. The summary is there on page 79. There is a section dealing with imported meat and animals. Hon. Members who are critical of me ought to read this carefully, because Gowers is important. It was the major report on foot-and-mouth.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: At the beginning of this epidemic, many people tried to get copies of the Gowers Report, but it was quite impossible to do so.


The right hon. Gentleman taunts us for not having read it, but for a long time it was impossible to obtain the Report.

Mr. Peart: It has been in the Library for years. The Report came out in July, 1964, issued by a Conservative Administration. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had had any difficulty. It has been made available to Members of Parliament and the general public. If the hon. Gentleman had had difficulties, I would gladly have got him a copy from my own library in the Ministry. I assure him that he could have had this, and I am rather surprised that he has not had a copy.
It is true that in 1961 the then Government decided, when pigmeat had been indicated as a source of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, to ban imports of pigmeat alone from countries where the disease was endemic. We have now taken similar action on mutton and lamb.
I have a whole list of outbreaks since the Gowers Report, since the finger was pointed to beef and to certain countries. Yet since Gowers we have had primary outbreaks year after year. In 1955, we had seven primary outbreaks. In 1956, there were 162 outbreaks and 32 primary outbreaks. In 1957, there were 184 outbreaks and 43 primary outbreaks. In 1958, there were 116 outbreaks and 29 primary outbreaks. I could go on. Not once did the right hon. Member for Grantham and his colleagues suggest, when they had responsibility, that anything should be done about the control of imports. It was not until 1961 that they acted on one commodity, and one commodity alone.
Surely all right hon. and hon. Members opposite read the Gowers Report. Surely they debated it. The right hon. Member for Grantham chided me about my position in the Government. I should like to know what his position was when he was a member of the Conservative Government. What was the position of the then Minister of Agriculture and all the friends of the industry who speak so eloquently now but who were in previous years afraid to do anything and in fact did absolutely nothing?

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: rose—

Mr. Peart: I have been asked about outbreaks. I have checked on many of these outbreaks. There is difficulty in identifying the origins. The Reid Report can only be circumstantial. That epidemic started at Oswestry. The Warwick outbreak was the result of swill. I shall have this checked in detail. I am sure that circumstantial evidence can be produced concerning the outbreaks which I have mentioned which occurred while the Conservative Party was in power. I should like to know why no action was taken. I said that I would take action after a major inquiry had been held. I have taken action. Of course, it has been pooh-poohed. I have been attacked outside for doing this and I have been attacked for political reasons inside. I must accept this.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Peart: On 4th March and again today the right hon. Member for Grantham referred to paragraph 18 of the Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer. It states that the disease
returns do not distinguish between cattle and sheep".
I have mentioned why sheep are a difficult problem, but it is not relevant to the action which we have taken. We have taken direct action on mutton and lamb because it has been called in question as a probable source of the epidemic.
How does this differ in principle from the action on pig meat which hon. Members opposite took in 1961? The principle is the same, despite the protestations of the right hon. Member for Grantham. In the same Press statement, the right hon. Member for Grantham accused us of
lack of logic in banning one form of meat and not the other".
But that is just what he and his colleagues did in 1961.
I do not propose to deal specifically with a very important aspect, namely, human health. My colleague will deal with it if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. However, it is right that I should say something about it. There has been much discussion recently not only of the question of animal health but also of the assumed risk to human health from


imports of meat. This may arise in any country from the way in which the meat is slaughtered or handled, whether or not there is any epidemic or disease in that country. I should emphasise that we already have in existence a mechanism for continual watch on any possible hazards to human health. In particular, meat plants in supplying countries are inspected by officers of my Ministry and we do not import from any plant which is not satisfactory. This is a continuing process.
I cannot accept therefore that the Government's decision on meat imports, following our review and study of the Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer, should be linked with public health considerations. If we become aware of any real risk to public health, we take action immediately.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is it not very significant that in one slaughterhouse, 1408, some lamb was found with salmonella and the foot-and-mouth virus and that both beef and lamb are slaughtered in that slaughterhouse?

Mr. Peart: Salmonella is a quite different matter from the foot-and-mouth virus. They are two quite different things and may be introduced into meat for different reasons. I am informed that when we heard that there was the possibility of salmonella infection we acted straight away. Some meat and offal was destroyed at the port. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a specific interest in this matter. Some of the points which affect Wrexham, although it is not in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, will be dealt with by my hon. Friend.
I have been speaking so far about the veterinary problem and the animal health risks. But there are also other important considerations. For many years we have been substantial importers of meat. About 30 per cent. of our requirements are still met from imported supplies. It would be an important matter for the housewife if we were to cut off part of this supply without replacement from some other source. As Minister of Food, I am deeply concerned about the price of food. I must be. Every hon. Member must be. The pattern of supply for meat over recent years hay been built up in response to demand. The housewife, the farmer at home, the meat trader and the shipper

dealing with imports all have an interest in it. It would be quite unrealistic to suppose that a decision could reasonably be taken on one consideration alone. We were bound to weigh all these factors.
In addition, it would be wrong to disregard the very important question of our traditional and potential trade with countries which have supplied us with meat for many years. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Grantham stressed that. We do not treat lightly these commercial relations. No Government would. I am sure that that was in the mind of the Conservative Administration when they did not implement the Gowers Report. We have acted much more quickly and have proposed sending a mission to South America to improve veterinary safeguards. We attach the greatest importance to the expansion of our exports to these countries and we are aiming for a substantial increase. Some hon. Members may well have had representations, as I have had, from some of those concerned with British exports to South America. I refer to British industrial interests.
Hon. Members opposite talk about representations and views in the Parliamentary Labour Party. There are differing views on both sides of the House. I know that many colleagues of the right hon. Member for Grantham, although they are not all present for this debate, would take a contrary line to that of the right hon. Gentleman. There are many factors to be weighed in the balance. Many people quite sincerely hold different points of view. I do not deny that different views are held in my party, as must be so in any great party. I have been chided about the views of my colleagues. Many of them have their own individual views. It is right that this should be so in a democratic party.
For all the reasons which I have outlined, I invite all hon. Members to support the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have taken an important decision on imports of mutton and lamb, despite what the right hon. Member for Grantham has said. We have initiated important veterinary discussions on the improvement of animal health safeguards. No right hon. or hon. Member opposite has criticised this decision. We have set in train the long-term consideration by the


Northumberland Committee, and no one yet has said that this is a wrong policy. All we have had are snide remarks, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that they are nonsense. I believe that our actions will markedly reduce the risk of the importation of foot-and-mouth disease. Hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, whose policy we have now modified, would do well not to underrate the value of this action which we have taken.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I shall not in the early part of my remarks follow the right hon. Gentleman, although I shall come later in some detail to what he said, and I shall even have something to say about what he did not say, too. First of all I want to speak about my constituency and to give the reasons why we feel as we do in Cheshire about the right hon. Gentleman and about the policy of the Government.
I have what is really the unhappy distinction of representing the constituency at the very heart of the whole epidemic, a constituency which now has had an enormous number of cases. When we had our last debate here, on 4th December, I was not then in the forefront. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) who then led the field in these unenviable stakes, but since then, in the Nantwich constituency, I have had confirmed that there have been more than 700 cases, that more than 700 herds actually took the disease, and we do not know for certain how many others have had to be slaughtered because they were contacts. But it is no exaggeration to say that in my constituency upwards of 800 herds have had to be slaughtered.
That is disaster of a magnitude which perhaps only those in the district can fully understand. It is something which the country, sympathetic as I know it has been, really cannot possibly comprehend; it cannot comprehend what it means to those of us who have had to live right at the heart of all this misery. One-third of the entire slaughterings in the whole country have been in my constituency, and it is not inappropriate that I should say a few words about the feelings of the people there, from the be-

ginning of the period of terrible travail through which they have lived.
It was obvious, I think, to all of us in the early days, the late days of October, that we were going to have an epidemic of colossal proportions, and so my farmers decided that they must go straightway into full siege conditions. It is no exaggeration to say that they literally barricaded themselves into their farms. They and their families and their farm workers stayed put, literally—except on those few occasions when a housewife or the farmer himself would have to go out on very urgent business; and when they put their foot outside their premises and went along those beautiful Cheshire lanes, wherever they went there they saw the heaps of slaughtered cattle.
The stench of burning cattle will be in our nostrils in Cheshire for years and years. I know the House will agree with me that I do not exaggerate when I say that. And it was quite a usual thing when a farmer and his wife came back from their business to find that they themselves had now become already victims of the disease, until, in quite the early days, there were huge tracts of Cheshire which were quite devoid of cattle altogether, and one might go and stand on the Peckforton Hills at night and count 30 or 40 fires burning.
I hope hon. Members can see what it means. We are not dealing with a factory on fire, and for which one can get insurance money. We are dealing with something about which the owners have a particular feeling—the dairy cow. I emphasised this, I know, in my speech on 4th December, but it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the dairy cow is regarded quite differently from all other farm animals, and the grief and the anguish which this widespread scale of loss has caused are beyond belief.
Moreover, those people were quite unable to keep the normal contacts with their friends and neighbours to help them to endure their grief. After all, when one suffers a great deal one of the best things is to be able to talk with one's friends and to have their comfort. This was not possible. There was the telephone, of course, but I am afraid the wretched telephone service we have did not stand up to the trial very well and, anyway, naturally everybody wanted to keep off the


telephone as much as possible to leave it free for those who had to report cases to the veterinary surgeons. This period of four months we have been through will remain absolutely indelibly imprinted upon the mind of Cheshire—and, my goodness, they do not ever want to have it again.
There is another side to this, too. There is the side of those who lost their businesses and suffered consequentially. The streets of our town of Nantwich are usually thriving and busy, but through this period they were very depressed indeed. The shops were empty. Shopkeepers complained, and do complain to me now, about the loss which they sustained, a loss of thousands of pounds in turnover, and this will never be compensated. I speak of Cheshire, but I do not exclude my hon. Friend's county, Shropshire or any of the other counties, but the loss which we have suffered in Nantwich is part of the loss for the whole country, and is really beyond computation. It is not to be wondered at that they feel that the sacrifices which they have made ought to be seen to have been made and that steps should be taken to make sure that they do not have to go through a similar ordeal again.
When the right hon. Gentleman went to Cheshire, he saw the work that his veterinary officers and administrative advisers were doing there, and it would do no harm to repeat the oft-said words of congratulation to them all for the work which they did. I have seen them literally falling asleep dead-beat in their offices while trying to cope with the work during the rush periods. No one can deny that the greatest possible credit is due to them.
When he was there, I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had the chance to see many farmers because, at that time, they were behind their barricades. If he had, he would have received the traditional welcome which we all receive whenever we visit Cheshire farms. It is something which makes me have to pay more attention to my figure than I would wish, so well do they look after one. However, if the right hon. Gentleman went today, he would find a very different atmosphere. The farming community is sullen and really furious with him. I do not exaggerate when I say

that. I know the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities. He is here in Whitehall, and he has to talk to his Cabinet colleagues. On the other hand, Cheshire farmers know what they have been through, and they do not want to have it again at any price.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us to read his Chief Veterinary Officer's Report. He said that he expected that Report to be quoted again and again today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) quoted it, and he was right to do so. However, to my mind, it is not so much what is in the Report as what is not in it which is so very important.
The salient sentence says:
It is known from returns made by the Argentine authorities that foot and mouth disease occurs in the exporting areas concerned, but the returns do not distinguish between cattle and sheep.
The right hon. Gentleman's Chief Veterinary Officer wrote that, and it is true as far as it goes, but the inference to be drawn from it is surely that we should not take any risks by importing the beef at all at the present stage.
Following the right hon. Gentleman's statement a few days ago, he reminded me of a Question that I had asked him the week before about the importation of mutton, offal and decapitated carcases. I had asked him that, if he intended to import, would he be sure at least that carcases were decapitated. I did that because I was terrified that he would remove the ban completely, and I wanted to save something from the wreck. That was what prompted me to ask the Question, not in any sense that I would be satisfied with it—far from it—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realised that when I said that I was advised by veterinary men who had been helping me in these matters.
In the last few days, I have been in touch with a veterinary surgeon in my constituency who has recently returned to private practice. I will not mention his name, because that would not be proper for reasons of etiquette, but I am prepared to tell the right hon. Gentleman who he is afterwards if he wishes to know. The gentleman concerned was seconded to one of the veterinary centres in my constituency in the early days of


the epidemic, and he worked in a responsible position there for three and a half months. He has given it as his absolute opinion that it is quite wrong to pursue the policy which the Government have now adopted. He has also given me his solemn assurance that that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's divisional veterinary officers, whom I would not presume to approach directly myself in view of their position. I have been told that, and I believe it to be true.
To use a colloquial expression, what has got their goat is this. The whole profession is very angry about the policy of the Government and this compromise decision. It is the considered opinion of those in the profession that, despite extensive vaccination of cattle which has largely eliminated active clinically-detectable disease, it has not eliminated possible sources of infection through sub-clinical cases or carriers whose bones, offals, tonsils, lymph nodes or even flesh may contain the virus. In addition, they know what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House, that 54 per cent. of the cases of foot-and-mouth disease which have occurred since 1952 have been due to the importation of Argentine meat.
In the light of all these feelings and views which are held by the right hon. Gentleman's adviser's, what will he do?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Suppress them, I should think.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Let me put this to him. Is he prepared to get up and say that his own Chief Veterinary Officer supports wholeheartedly the policy which he is now adopting? If he is prepared to say that, I will gladly give way to him.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): The hon. Gentleman ought to know better.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The right hon. Gentleman obviously is not prepared to do that. The inference is clear for all to see. The Government have taken a political decision, and not one which the common grounds of proper health dictate.
I want to say a word now about exports and imports. We have heard much

about our valuable trade with South American countries. Why does not the President of the Board of Trade come to the House and tell us exactly what is the situation? All that we know are figures, which I have never seen contradicted, showing that we buy approximately £71 million worth of meat from them and that they buy £20 million of goods from us. I have seen advertisements by interested parties which talk about £200 million worth of exports. I have seen reports that we lost a valuable machinery contract worth £30 million to a Western German supplier. We did not hear about the possibility of that order until we were told that it had been lost.
Why cannot we have some real honest to goodness details about these things, not airy-fairy statements about the importance of our export market. We all know that. However, it would help a great deal if we knew what it was that we were losing. We are not told. I can only imagine that we are not told because the pressures are so great from other directions upon the Government. Let the right hon. Gentleman remember that it is not sufficiently good for people to come along and say, "Poor old Fred, he is doing his best". It may be that he is doing his best, but he is the only one we can get at. He represents Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, we hold him responsible. He will have to bear a very heavy responsibility all his life if he puts a foot wrong now and there should be another outbreak of the disease. Only he will be responsible. He has had the biggest lesson of all. I know that Tory Ministers in the past and others ought to have seen the light—I do not disagree with that—but the right hon. Gentleman has had the brightest light of all to show the way and he refuses to take it.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: There can be no doubt that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House and people outside who have misgivings about the lifting of the ban on Argentine beef. This is natural in view of the recent foot-and-mouth epidemic which swept over large areas of England and Wales, creating problems for farmers and involving the nation in heavy financial loss. Stocks have had to be destroyed,


and money cannot buy stock. Stock have to be raised, and this takes time.
In view of the experience of the last six months of epidemic, one can understand the reluctance of many to agree to the lifting of this ban on Argentine beef as from 15th April next. While it is known that the epidemic is caused by a virus, it is not easy to decide the precise manner in which the infection is carried. For this reason, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to our recent experience at Wrexham to see whether something can be learned.
The country has undergone one of the worst foot-and-mouth epidemics in its history. Mr. John Reid, the Chief Veterinary Officer, conducted an inquiry and the report has been published. It is not a long report, but it is very interesting and informative. However, Mr. Reid was not able to arrive at a firm conclusion regarding the origin of this widespread epidemic. His conclusion is circumstantial, but: circumstantial evidence is not conclusive proof.
Paragraph 12 of the Report reads:
It was not possible to establish conclusively that imported frozen lamb carried foot-and-mouth disease virus to the farm, but as all other generally recognised sources of infection had been eliminated, it remained the most probable vector.
There are other possible sources of infection: movements of animals and persons, mechanical carriage by birds and wind, and materials used on the farm. But in this instance all these were eliminated as possible sources of infection. However, one remained, and this, for a variety of reasons, could not be eliminated Because it could not be eliminated, it has been circumstantially accepted as the probable source.
What was this uneliminated source? A farmer, who is named and whose farm is identified, received lamb bones for his dogs. We are told that those dogs could have carried the bones into the farmyard and the neighbouring fields. There is no actual evidence that they did carry the bones to the neighbouring fields. Bones were found in the farmyard, but none were found in the fields. We are not told whether those bones were examined and, if so, what the results were.
On account of this Wrexham has become the victim of national news of

a damaging nature, involving the Wrexham Health Authority, the Wrexham abattoir and the Wrexham Fatstock Marketing Corporation. The Reid Report gives a circumstantial conclusion, but that is not the case with some of the national Press. The Sunday Express, of 10th March, reads:
We know now the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which cost us £100 million or more, began at Wrexham. Its cause was a batch of contaminated Argentine lambs.
It further states quite categorically that the meat
… arrived at London and was found to have a food poisoning virus. It should have been burnt. Instead it was sent to Wrexham.
Again, the Sunday Express said:
The Wrexham Health Inspector wished to test it. Indeed, he was told by the Ministry of Health to release it for sale, and so the outbreak began.
The Reid Report is circumstantial; the Sunday Express is final and conclusive. "So", according to the Sunday Express, "the outbreak began." Why was the Sunday Express so certain of these conclusions? Here I must refer to the action taken by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who, once again, encroached upon matters concerning another Member's constituency.

Hon. Members: Shocking. Not for the first time.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: rose—

Mr. Jones: I would like to know where he got his information from.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Jones: Did he receive it from any member of the Wrexham Health Committee?

Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that this is not a matter of national concern but merely of constituency concern, I can tell him that I had information, because I inquired, about Wrexham, Oswestry, my own constituency, Manchester and London.

Mr. Jones: I will proceed with my argument in my own way. If by some process the hon. and learned Gentleman obtained information involving my division, why


in the first instance, as other hon. Members would have done, did he not consult me about it?

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must make his own inquiries.

Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman may argue, as he has done, that this is a national and not a constituency matter. That is exactly the argument he used regarding the Aberavon Steelworks on 19th December, 1963.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: And Brecon and Radnor.

Mr. Jones: And Brecon and Radnor, and the argument he used when he interfered with the Pentre Maelor Estate in my constituency a few years ago.
It was only last Monday that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) intervened at Question Time and said:
Would not the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that it is contrary to the practice and custom of the House for hon. Members to put down Questions relating to their colleagues' constituencies? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 975.]
I suggest to the hon. Member for Orpington, who I understand is the Liberal Party Whip, that he should call his hon. and learned Friend to order on this practice. The obvious reason for his action, and the one which most people accept, is that he was exploiting the situation for political ends. He has received his publicity, and in so doing has succeeded in making Wrexham, in the public eye, the scapegoat for a national disaster. He has tarnished in the public's view, the established reputation of the Wrexham abattoir. Had the person who gave the information to the hon. and learned Gentleman given it to me, I would have handled it in a different way, and with much better results, even if it meant sacrificing my own publicity. I do not know whether I should go further into this question.
It appears that a cargo of Argentine lambs was delivered at the Port of London on 23rd August, and a part of that consignment was sent to Wrexham, where it arrived on 25th August. But another cargo had arrived a month earlier. This was suspected of being infected with salmonella typhimurium, a food-poison bacteria unconnected with foot-and-mouth. This cargo was examined and destroyed.
The report was issued two days after the arrival of the second cargo at Wrexham. The Manchester public health inspector, no doubt confusing the two cargoes, telephoned the Wrexham public health inspector and informed him that the meat was suspect. The Wrexham officer rightly impounded as much as he could of the original consignment of lambs, and arranged for them to be examined at Chester. The test did not take place, because the Ministry of Health informed the Wrexham officer that the meat was not infected, and could be distributed as fit for human consumption. But let us be clear about this. The test was not for foot-and-mouth infection. The suspicion which had been confirmed in the case of the previous cargo was in respect of salmonella, which is a food poison bacteria, and has no connection with foot-and-mouth. Events have proved that the Ministry of Health was correct when it declared that the meat which was delivered at Wrexham was not infected with salmonella, because there has not been a trace of human illness resulting from eating this meat.
By some coincidence, the Chairman of the Wrexham Borough Health Committee, who I understand is a personal friend of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, gave a Press interview on the Wednesday evening, the day when the hon. and learned Gentleman was piling up his Questions. It certainly was a striking coincidence. As far as I know, the members of the health committee did not know of this report, nor had an emergency meeting been called to discuss it.
At his Press interview, the Chairman said that if the local health authority at Wrexham had been able to confirm that the meat was infected by testing the carcases, the consignment might well have been destroyed, but then he admitted,
We would not have been able to detect foot-and-mouth, but the consignment now being blamed would have been destroyed and the outbreak prevented.
According to his argument, if that ship had been sunk in mid-ocean, the outbreak would have been prevented. That would be true provided one makes two assumptions. First, that this lamb was responsible for the foot-and-mouth epidemic, and there is no conclusive proof of that.


Secondly, that salmonella bacteria would have been found in the carcases before they were destroyed, but the evidence is that there was no such bacteria in them, otherwise human beings who ate the meat would have become ill.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Did my hon. Friend test it?

Mr. Jones: I never eat meat. I am a vegetarian.
I have gone into this case in some detail, not only because I am anxious to restore the reputation of the borough authority of Wrexham which has been tarnished by this unfortunate publicity, but because our experience can suggest what might be done to mitigate the misgivings of those who are hesitant about lifting the ban on Argentine beef.
To my mind the case for lifting the ban has been made, but the question of restoring public confidence is another matter, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can reorganise the examination system by putting fully qualified veterinary surgeons in key positions so that meat can be thoroughly and scientifically tested at key centres before it is distributed to the different areas. If this were done, and known to the public to be done, I believe that public confidence could be restored, and this is very important at this time.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Save that it was mitigated by his confession of being a vegetarian, I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) was the most pathetic example of parish pump politics that I have heard for a long time.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was some kind of slight on Wrexham, as though Wrexham injected foot-and-mouth virus into these carcases, instead of it being purely fortuitous that these cargoes of lamb which were suspect went to Wrexham, and from there were distributed over a wide area, to Oswestry, to my constituency, and to the constituencies of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be some kind of inhibition on inquiries which hon. Members can make when a national disaster of this kind occurs, that they

must be confined in their inquiries by the geographical limits of their constituencies, I must say that I absolutely reject that contention.
I made inquiries, not only in Wrexham, but in my constituency, in Oswestry, and in Manchester, where the report came from, and also in London. Not one hon. Member objected, nor would I have objected if the hon. Gentleman had made inquiries in my constituency. To suggest that this kind of thing can be contained, and to argue that this is a constituency matter, is rubbish, and everyone knows it.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is common courtesy in this House to consult other hon. Members?

Mr. Hooson: Many inquiries were going on, and it was open to the hon. Member for Wrexham, just as it was to me, to make inquiries. It was open to him to put down Questions, just as it was to me, but he failed to do so. The heart of his complaint is that this matter was taken up by somebody other than himself.

Mr. Jopling: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this interesting conversation about Wrexham is an ingenious device which hon. Gentlemen opposite have whipped up to take the heat and pressure of the argument off the Minister'?

Mr. Hooson: I think that I have pursued that red herring as far as I need, and red herring is what the complaint from the hon. Member for Wrexham is.
I made it clear in the House some time ago how completely opposed I was to the lifting of this ban on beef. There is a basic difficulty here. We follow a slaughter policy with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, yet we import from countries where it is endemic. Because of this complete difference of system between the Argentine and other countries and ourselves, we are always at risk. The more that other countries use vaccination and the more resistant the virus becomes—in particular, the O1, virus which was recently isolated—the more difficult it is to tackle it here.
Therefore, because of our slaughter policy, we face ever-increasing bills. Having had an epidemic which has cost


this country at least £100 million, we cannot afford to run the risk of another such outbreak without at least being assured that the Argentinians and others are making efforts comparable to our own. Is it not right that we should ask the Argentine Government and other such Governments at least to spend something substantial on improvements, to show some signs of appreciating the tremendous cost of this epidemic to this country?
I do not resile from what I have said before, that the Minister tackled the outbreak very well, but he was extremely unconvincing today, because he was arguing a case against his own convictions. This is occasionally the lot of Ministers, but his arguments certainly did not bear the signs of conviction. In the Reid Report, by excluding other factors and by what he called circumstantial evidence, the Chief Veterinary Officer concluded that the epidemic had, in all probability, been caused by the 770 Iamb carcases distributed from Wrexham abattoir. I have always understood that circumstantial evidence is as good as any other, but of a different kind. It is almost impossible to get exact scientific evidence here. One can only trace the source by an exclusion of factors and this is what has been done in this case.
One thing which troubles me, on reading the report, in respect of beef is whether there has been any inquiry into whether the butcher at Oswestry had imported frozen beef from the Argentine. I ask this because I have made inquiries from butchers and find that they rarely bone lamb. They might cut off the end knuckles on chops and so on, but they do not normally bone lamb, although it is normal to bone beef. As they were supplying bones for a firm, it is highly unlikely that lamb bones were supplied. It is much more likely that these bones were beef. This matter needs inquiry.
From my inquiries, I find that only one firm in the country goes in extensively for boning lamb and that is a Birmingham firm which supplies canteens with what are called "tasty cuts". I do not know what they do with their bones, but perhaps we may discover later, with some of the distributions in the Midlands of this meat from Establishment

1408, what happened about the disposal of those bones.
There is a mystery about the 770 lamb carcases and their movement, and there is still a suspicion about their condition. Everyone knows that salmonella is a different kind of infection from foot-and-mouth, but that is not the relevance of this matter. We are concerned with the dangers of importing meat without adequate safeguards and it is vitally important for the meat-eating public as well as the farming community to acknowledge that not one virus but two are traceable to Establishment 1408 in the Argentine. There was the salmonella virus and, by a process of elimination, the foot-and-mouth virus. Both were traceable to this slaughterhouse.
What impresses one is that, at slaughterhouse 1408—I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would interrupt if I am not correct, because I am 99·9 per cent. certain—beef as well as lamb is slaughtered. This slaughterhouse is on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, where foot-and-mouth is endemic in cattle as well as lambs.
The Minister knows that I have queried him about inspections of Establishment 1408. Am I not right in thinking that in about April last year, there was an adverse report on this very slaughterhouse—that is, in an inspection earlier than those about which he has answered? Am I not also right in thinking that this strain of salmonella, which was entirely new to this country, and the foot-and-mouth virus O1, which was also new, can both be carried by beef as well as by lamb? This is, therefore, a serious matter for the whole country.
Now we enter what appears to be a No man's land, where one is puzzled about where the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture ends and that of the Minister of Health begins in regard to the importation of lamb and beef. Is it not correct that no carcases are normally inspected by a veterinary officer from the moment they leave the slaughterhouse in whatever the exporting country is until they are delivered to the housewife in this country? Am I not also right in thinking that very few samples are taken from the carcases for testing?
There is still a great deal of mystery about the history of this consignment of


lamb on which the blame for the outbreak is put. The story really begins on Tuesday, 29th August, when the Chief Public Health Inspector of Manchester—not Wrexham—received a report from the Port of London Health Authority about lamb carcases bearing the number 1408, the slaughterhouse number, and the code letters PTARHT. He was told that these carcases were either infected with salmonella or suspected of being infected.
It is important to note the date—29th August. This is four days after, according to the Minister's reply to me, there had been an inspection and an isolation of this virus in lamb offal by the Port of London Health Authority. This information was passed to Wrexham by the Manchester authorities, since this consignment was originally destined for a wholesaler in Manchester but had been diverted to Wrexham. When Wrexham checked up in their slaughterhouse, they found lambs with these identical numbers and code letters. This was the identical consignment referred to and this is how the investigation to which the hon. Member for Wrexham has referred was set in train.
Then, I have asked the Minister for details of the arrival of these lambs in this country, and I am still not satisfied. From my inquiries, it seems that they must have arrived on one of two ships, the "Brazil Star" or the "Paraguay Star". The "Brazil Star" docked on 16th July and unloading had been completed by 21st July. The unloading had been completed by that date, yet the Minister told me in an Answer that the test which revealed salmonella was made on 25th August. Why was no test done until 25th August on carcases from this earlier cargo?
The "Paraguay Star" arrived on 23rd August, commenced unloading on the 24th, and that was completed on the 31st. The Minister said in his Answer to me that the lambs which went to Wrexham were unloaded on the 23rd. This cannot be right because, according to the Port of London authorities, that ship did not arrive until the 23rd and unloading did not begin until the 24th. Thus, the right hon. Gentleman cannot be correct if the information given to me by the Port of London authorities is right.
The mystery deepens because the fact that these lamb carcases arrived in Wrexham on the evening of the 24th suggests that they might have come from the earlier importation. I mention this because there appear to be signs of a great administrative muddle having occurred between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. No doubt inadvertently, the Minister appears to have given me wrong information. [Interruption.] I have checked it as best I can, and that appears to be the case. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into this, with the Port of London authorities and the other responsible bodies, to find out the true position.
How did it come about that on 29th August, four days after the test, the reference numbers and letters which had been given to the public health inspector at Manchester were found on the Wrexham lambs, yet they were released the very same day? Why was the Chester Laboratory told on 30th August that there was no need to continue with the testing of lambs because the tests would be continued in London? These matters must be inquired into more thoroughly.
All this goes to show the inadequacy of our system of inspection and recording at the ports and the unfortunate overlap that exists between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. The fact that no veterinary surgeon ever examines these carcases—and this system may have persisted for years—is all the more reason why a thorough investigation should be conducted into this whole matter. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the investigating committee which was recently set up under the Duke of Northumberland will have power to make recommendations about this and about the regulations covering the importation of food.
Am I right in thinking that the recent investigations have shown that there are three grades of lamb imported from the Argentine, the top grade being blue, the second red and the third black? Have not the investigations also shown that a preponderance of black lamb is imported into this country, lamb of a quality which would not normally be imported?
It is impossible to take this and other matters further at this stage. Many more inquiries must be made, and the persisting


doubts prove the importance of continuing the ban on beef as well as on lamb. This should be done until this whole mystery has been cleared up.
It should be remembered that not only the farming community but the entire meat-eating public is greatly affected. With the possible exception of the hon. Member for Wrexham, the public must be concerned about the importation of meat from a country in which the standards of hygiene seem not to be anything like those obtaining here.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to say whether, before or after the meat was sold, there was the slightest proof of the presence of salmonella in the meat? Is there the slightest known connection between salmonella and foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Hooson: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have heard me say at the beginning of my speech that there is no known connection between salmonella as such and foot-and-mouth disease. The relevance of the matter is that both of these consignments, accepting that there were different consignments, came from the same slaughterhouse. The public, in addition to the farming community, have a great interest in ensuring that proper standards of hygiene are maintained and that adequate standards exist covering the importation of meat.

6.26 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): It might be convenient if I intervene briefly at this stage to comment on some of the matters which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) regards as a mystery.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the relative responsibilities of my right hon. Friend and myself in respect of imported meat. My right hon. Friend is responsible for imported meat up to the point of importation, including being responsible for the certification procedure and the inspection of premises overseas, although one of my medical officers joins in some of the inspections overseas. Although we are both legally jointly responsible for hygiene and meat inspection in home slaughterhouses, my right hon. Friend has the primary responsibility. I am responsible, through the local autho-

rities, including the port health authorities, for the inspection of meat after importation and for the enforcement of the hygiene regulations. That is a fairly clear division of responsibilitiy between us.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a lot of questions, some of them duplicating Questions he has on the Order Paper, the Answers to which he may find waiting for him on the board outside the Chamber. The shipment in question in Wrexham was part of the later consignment—I think from the "Paraguay Star"—and he will find that I have given him the dates between which it was unloaded.
I stated in Answers to the hon. and learned Gentleman on Monday that, knowing now all the circumstances, I do not believe that any further specific measures taken at the time on the public health side would have benefited the public health further. This is not to say, however, that the machinery functioned without fault last August. For example, it appears that the health authorities in Wrexham were informed by the Port of London Health Authority that this consignment of meat was part of a cargo from a suspect source, some of which had been sampled although the results were not yet known. Later they were told, incorrectly, that samples had been taken and that a proportion had proved to be contaminated with salmonella. Because it was believed that the London laboratory had already tested this cargo, the local laboratory did not duplicate the test.
The public health laboratories aim to meet all reasonable requirements made on them, but they are very hard pressed and they endeavour to see as far as possible, and rightly so, that they do not unnecessarily duplicate the testing of samples. Moreover, this bacteriological sampling of carcase meat is essentially a research study and not part of the routine control. No sampling would have revealed foot-and-mouth disease virus if it was present. The main check on the fitness of imported meat is routine inspection during production, and this system is in turn checked by the periodic inspection of producing centres and by naked eye inspection of a sample of carcases on arrival.
The misunderstandings at that time have been resolved and should not recur. However, let us suppose that the laboratory tests had been carried out for the Wrexham authorities, as they had wished. There is no reason to suppose that this would have shown any different result from the tests which were later carried out on the same cargo in London, none of which was found to contain food poisoning organisms. The House will remember that there have been no reports of disease in humans from this meat. On clearance, the carcases would have been released for sale, and if they did lead to the terrible foot-and-mouth epidemic, presumably they would still have done so, but at a slightly later date.

Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point about the message sent by the Port of London Authority to Manchester giving the precise code numbering of the lambs? Am I not right in thinking that there was a very small outbreak of salmonella in Manchester and that although its source was not traced, it was an exactly identical type of salmonella said to have been found in these lambs?

Mr. Robinson: I can only repeat that no case of salmonella was traced to this consignment. I understand that they got the code number wrong as certain letters were omitted, and this led to the confusion.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: It will be in your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I endeavoured to move the Adjournment of the House immediately when the Minister announced his decision that beef shipments were to be resumed from the middle of April. I am very glad that we are having this debate now. I am a little disappointed that we did not have an emergency debate then, because if we had had that emergency debate, it would have stopped any meat being laden on to vessels, whereas probably there is some now in transit to this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) dealt very effectively with the emotional strain put on the farming community. I shall base my remarks on other factors. I hope to make a cool, calculated and devastating

case which will destroy the Minister's very feeble arguments in justification of what he has done in the last few days. It was very significant that during the battle when this epidemic was at its height, every time the Minister came to the Dispatch Box he said clearly that he was resting his decisions entirely on the advice of his Chief Veterinary Officer. How different it was on 4th March. Then we did not hear anything about the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer.
The Secretary of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants let the cat out of the bag when he said that he was dismayed at the decision. Of course, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants speaks for all those in authority in the Civil Service who had to bear the heat, the brunt and the burden of the day in fighting the epidemic. They do not want to have this battle all over again and they know very well they might have to fight the battle all over again if this meat comes into our country. I am afraid that the experts know the answer and in this instance the Minister has not listened to his experts on the health of our livestock.
We are still in a comparatively dangerous phase. I am glad that officially—I emphasise officially—the epidemic appeared to be over at 5 o'clock this afternoon, but my constituency is still in an "infected area" in the County of Chester. There is still a large infected area and I have been told by the Minister's officers that restocking is a dangerous phase. About 2 per cent. of farms which have restocked have had another outbreak. One could assume that say 1 per cent. might get a second outbreak, and in that case we could be facing another 30 outbreaks. I hope that that will not happen, but I do not think anyone can claim that the epidemic is yet at an end.
The National Farmers Union is united against the Minister. The Union never likes to take an extreme view, but in this case it is quite clear in its condemnation of what the Minister is doing. His decision shows a cynical disregard for the animal health of the country. Also it may well be a great handicap to the Northumberland Committee because the worst thing that could happen during its


investigations would be for another outbreak to take place and thus further confuse the evidence, which is already extraordinarily confusing.
I have said that I shall not base my case on emotion. I shall rest it on absolutely practical facts facing the farming community and which will face the Committee of Inquiry. First, there are the mysteries in the worst epidemic this country has faced. This is where the Minister has failed to appreciate the situation. He has drawn attention to what previous Administrations have done when there have been very small outbreaks, but this was the worst epidemic in the whole of our island's history. In conclusion I will draw attention to the weaknesses of existing precautions, economic considerations and the unjustified strain on the farming community.
As to the mysteries of this epidemic, I do not think the Minister would deny that the authorities were caught entirely flat-footed. The veterinary profession was working within an out-of-dated code of rules. The procedures which they were trying to operate were not effective in face of an epidemic of this size. Regulations were made and they were reversed and ignored—quite rightly because we were facing an unprecedented situation. I do not criticise the Ministry officials for that. Movement control was an amazing mix-up and there was a sort of dichotomy of control betwen the police and the Ministry. In face of an epidemic on this scale and of this size, this was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. This is a very real reason why we should wait for the report of the Northumberland Committee. The administrative framework suitable for dealing with a very small epidemic is quite unsuitable for dealing with an emergency such as we have just seen. I look forward very much to the Committee's Report on the administrative side.
There are many mysteries. I shall highlight one mystery that of the virus itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), in a most penetrating and splendid speech, drew attention to some of the mysteries regarding the virus. I pay tribute to two men who have produced the excellent report put out by Farmers Weekly entitled "The Reckoning". Those men, Mike Leyburn

and Mike Williams, have travelled all over the country and over the Continent getting an enormous amount of very valuable information.
I shall not quote what my right hon. Friend quoted, regarding what Dr. Brooksby said, as it was quite correct. The important thing is that Dr. Brooksby was induced to break his silence. This is one of the incredible things. The mysteries have been quite unnecessary. Surely the farming community was entitled to know a great deal more of what was going on. Why was Dr. Brooksby so timorous, and why did he almost have to excuse himself for breaking his silence and telling us what the greatest expert in the world knew about the virus? The virus has been unique in this instance. Just in parenthesis may I say that I am interested in the Chief Veterinary Officer's Report, but I did not find it wholly convincing.
One of the reasons why the epidemic has spread is that the virus was unique in that it had one disturbing property. That was the very variable incubation period, which was sometimes a month and sometimes a matter of days. I have reason to suppose that the incubation period has been altered significantly by the vaccination procedures in the Argentine.
The Minister was very specific in saying that the Research Department at Pirbright did not come under him. There has been a lamentable lack of liaison between the experts at Pirbright and the field staff who have been operating. The decision to remove the import ban in face of these well-defined facts is a disaster.
I turn to the weaknesses in precautions. There is still no manual of advice available either for farmers or for the collaborating authorities. Only the other day I was speaking to a river board official who had been responsible for disposal, cleaning up and so on at three of the Ministry's centres in the middle of Cheshire. I asked him if he obtained his information from a manual of instructions and he replied that no manual of instructions was ever issued to him. That was confirmed by another official. During the heat of the outbreak I pleaded for a manual of instructions to be issued to farmers so that they should know how to take precautions, but none was issued, except the original introductory leaflet. For these kinds of reasons, we should have the Committee's report before we take these risks again.
I should like to know whose advice is the best. Is it grandpa's? In my area we remember what happened in 1924, when there was a similar epidemic hi Cheshire and people hung up onions. Is that any good? Are we to look to the homeopaths for advice or to the Ministry? Nobody has said whether the Ministry's advice is any better than grandpa's or the homeopaths', but I am inclined to think that grandpa's is some of the best advice I have heard on how to ward off the disease, such is the lamentable extent of the advice on precautions from the Ministry.
I turn to a more serious matter, the question of disinfectants, which I have very carefully documented. Without doubt, throughout the whole outbreak there has been amazing confusion in the Ministry's advice about disinfectants. I asked a few Parliamentary Questions and have had a fairly voluminous correspondence with the Ministry on disinfectants, but at the height of the outbreak I ceased writing about the subject as I thought that would be helpful, knowing that the Ministry was extra busy. But I returned to the disinfectant attack with a Question on 7th February. The Minister's reply was:
… the approved list of disinfectants is being re-examined.…
It had been examined before, and by 7th February it was being re-examined.
I am told that the experts at Pirbright had forecast that we should have an epidemic last autumn. This ties up with other evidence I sent the Minister from another source, from which I also had information that the Ministry's veterinary service had been advised that an epidemic was expected in the autumn. I was told that that was not accurate, but I have recently heard that the greatest experts at Pirbright forecast that there would be an epidemic in this country because of their study of their graphs of the movement of the disease. It had moved from Russia into Western Europe, and the next stop was expected to be in this country. That information came to me secondhand, but it was given by the deputy director at Pirbright, Dr. Sellars.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: If the hon. Gentleman accepts that information, which presumably he does, why does he suggest that my right hon. Friend

should maintain the ban on South American meat?

Mr. Temple: I am drawing attention to the unknown factors and mysteries. This is a debate on the ban to be considered by the Northumberland Committee. The evidence of the Minister's Chief Veterinary Officer points to lamb, and therefore lamb is the probable cause. But I am drawing attention to the lack of liaison between Pirbright and the field staff.
I shall continue quoting from the Answers concerning disinfectants, because this is one of the most important passages in my speech. The Minister said:
Disinfection at the gate of the infected premises of men and vehicles that have to enter and leave is also essential.… An approved disinfectant is used and the purpose of this is is to kill the virus,…".
Earlier in that Answer he said:
…my officers use a 4 per cent. solution of washing soda for areas they consider to be contaminated, including buildings.
He added that all his approved disinfectants are
effective in time, though some take longer than others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 155.]
That is the under-statement of the century. There is no doubt that the Minister's officers were using washing soda, which is not an approved disinfectant, although the Minister expected all other people in agriculture to use an "approved disinfectant". I now know from Pirbright the time-scale of the effectiveness of the average approved disinfectant. It takes 2½ hours to give a 98 per cent. kill. In other words, one would have to stand on a pad for 2½ hours to obtain 98 per cent. security against taking the virus on to a farm.
About mid-November last year Pirbright was asked to carry out experiments on "Idophor" disinfectants. Based on detergents mixed with acids and iodine, this is a well-known type of disinfectant. By 10th January, the deputy director of the Animal Virus Research Institute reported that this disinfectant, which was not an "approved disinfectant", would give 99·9 per cent. kill in 15 seconds. That meant that a disinfectant which was not approved by the Ministry worked 800 times faster and was 100


times more effective than the approved disinfectant, and it was also cheaper. This is a most disgraceful state of affairs.
I should like to quote from a letter from the Animal Health Division of the Ministry to a Mr. Evans, of Vanodine Ltd., of Manchester. It said:
…the approval of such disinfectants would require a change of policy on our part.
So the Ministry admits that it has to change its policy, yet it has lifted the ban in the face of that admission. The letter continued:
I am afraid, however, that all this must of necessity take some time.
I should also like to quote from a letter written on behalf of the Minister to Mr. Evans on 4th March. It is about the same matter that I have to quote. It says:
This policy has been under discussion before the present epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease arose. It seems to us quite obvious now that we must approve disinfectants for specific purposes. This cannot be done at the drop of a hat.
Well, well, well! Is it not amazing to think that with an epidemic of this nature, and the possibility of a recurrence, the Ministry cannot immediately institute a method to deal with the disinfectant situation?
I was rather amazed by all this information. It does not give one very much confidence in the Ministry's speed of operation. The Ministry are hidebound by legislation last revised in 1936. Yet, without having put a revision of that legislation in hand, it is prepared to lift the ban and subject our animals to the dangers resulting from the possibility of another outbreak. I am afraid that at present the farming community is almost unarmed against a future epidemic.
There is a sequel to this story. The Minister, always claims that he is particularly interested in exports. Many countries are very interested in our disinfectants, and the first thing they want to know is whether they are "approved". The Russians are very interested in the disinfectant I have described, but its export chances are not enhanced by the fact that the Ministry has not approved it. The Ministry says that it is 800 times faster and 100 times more effective than its approved disinfectant, and a foreign Government is mystified as to why it is

not an approved disinfectant under the Ministry's regulations.
I leave those questions about precautions and turn now to economic considerations. Here there is a devastating case for retaining the ban until such time as the Northumberland Committee has had an opportunity to advise the country on the economic advantages or disadvantages of importing meat from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic. The first fact which will strike the Northumberland Committee is that this outbreak has cost about £100 million. There is little dispute about that. There is then the question of the rise in the price of food. I recognise that it is necessary to tackle this question, and I shall do so logically.
The wholesale price of meat just before devaluation, on 19th November, was running at about 146s. a cwt., only a little over the figure in the previous year. By the time the import ban went on, it had risen to 181s. a cwt. Thus, the major rise took place long before the import ban was put on. It was due largely to devaluation and, to an extent, to dislocation.
If the ban were retained, it would not be all loss to the Treasury. The figures are significant. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to give me a long and detailed table showing the way guarantee payments had moved. During July and right through to October last year, the Ministry had been paying out guarantee payments varying between £1 million and £1½ million a week. Immediately on devaluation, there was a rise in prices and, very significantly, in the week before the ban was put on, there was practically no deficiency payment—only £8,000. What is that compared with £1 million or £1½ million? Therefore, those who say that the ban on imported meat was responsible for the rise in prices have not looked carefully into the facts.
Now, the question of our trading position in relation to Argentina. Unfortunately—I think it most unfortunate—we have been running an adverse balance of trade of between £44 million and £50 million in every year from 1964 to 1967. It is estimated that in 1967 we imported £72 million worth of goods from Argentina and exported £25 million worth of goods. I do not regard those terms of trade between ourselves and Argentina as satisfactory. Moreover, they


occurred at a time when we were importing meat from Argentina and when one would have expected much more reciprocal trade. It is significant that the United States, which has for many years had a ban on carcase meat imported from South America, has very favourable terms of trade with Argentina. In 1966, the latest year for which I have been able to obtain figures, the United States of America, while maintaining a ban such as I would recommend, had a favourable balance of trade with Argentina of about £40 million. I submit, therefore, that the Northumberland Committee will have to look carefully at these economic factors. It will not find that the balance of advantage is entirely one way.
I am very conscious of the immense strain on the farming community. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) portrayed the situation in Cheshire. It was tragic. But, if the Minister persists in what he is doing, every dog running about with a bone and every fox taking a bone across the countryside will be suspected of bringing foot-and-mouth disease on to one's farm. The situation will be as simple as that, and I do not want that state of affairs ever to exist again in our county.
The business of farming is not what I would call a normal business. If one has a fire in a normal business, one collects the insurance and one rebuilds very quickly. If one has a conflagration on a farm and one's animals are all cremated, one cannot bring those animals back to life, and neither can one bring the farm back to life for quite a long time. I believe that the health not only of animals but of many human beings has been undermined by the strain which has been put on them during the outbreak. It has been a great tragedy.
There is an overwhelming case in terms of pure logic, leaving emotion entirely aside, for retention of the ban until the Northumberland Committee has reported. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will have second thoughts. We all know that they are quite capable of second thoughts nowadays. l hope that this will be one of their good second thoughts. They must think again and change their decision to lift the ban on Argentine beef.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that I can hope to call all hon. Members who are eagerly waiting to be called only if speeches are reasonably brief.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in his wanderings through the world of disinfectants and their application to farming. I thought it particularly opportune that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health took part in the debate immediately after the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and completely demolished the scurrilous red herring which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought in. I hope that, when the debate is reported, full prominence will be given to the words of the Minister of Health in order that this scurrilous attack which has been made upon Argentine meat exporters and British meat importers will be refuted, with equal publicity.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris)—I am sorry that he has had to leave—when he described the anguish which this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has caused to farmers. There is no hon. or right hon. Member who would disagree. Of course there is anguish. There is anguish in the hearts of farm workers, too, who are confined to their homes during an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and who have the distress of seeing animals destroyed, animals which they probably know a lot more intimately than the owners themselves do. We all recognise the terrible situation facing farmers.
I understood that the purpose of the debate was to discuss the ban on imported meat and my right hon. Friend's action in partially raising it. In my judgment, our discussion should have been based upon the Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer, but we have heard little about that, except from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones), who put a very well thought out case from the point of view of his own interests and those of his area.
The Chief Veterinary Officer's Report is most interesting. I would not call the


evidence circumstantial. I would call it inconclusive. There is not a positive fact in the Report which would justify a blanket ban on all imported meat. Paragraph 9 tells us that,
It has not been possible to establish whether these supplies"—
that is, supplies of lamb to the Bryn Farm—
were of New Zealand or of Argentine origin".
Paragraph 12 tells us, again, that it was not possible to establish conclusively that imported lamb carried the disease to the farm. It just appears, other sources having been eliminated, that lamb must have been, or could have been, "the most probable vector". There is nothing conclusive in it at all. Paragraph 14 tells us of samples of Argentine and other meat which were tested, all with negative results. There is no positive proof whatever that this outbreak was the result of imported meat.
There is no indication of the results of tests which, I have no doubt, were done on the carcases from Establishment 1408 which were tracked down. The Report does not comment on that. I should like the Minister to tell us whether tests were taken on those other carcases which were tracked down and what the results were. It would be interesting to know whether it could be proved that the virus was present in any carcase which was actually tracked down. I very much doubt it.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend would also tell us a little more about the inquiries which I assume that our veterinary officers in the Argentine made as soon as the outbreak was notified and suspicions were aroused as to its source. Did they visit the establishments? What information have we?
It is wrong, on the basis of the Chief Veterinary Officer's Report, to condemn all imported meat. It is right that my right hon. Friend should have taken into protective custody carcases where there is some suspicion, though I claim that the suspicion is so inconclusive that even that may not be absolutely just to the Argentine. However, there is a case for saying that, because there appears to be some evidence, those carcases should be taken into protective custody.
The Opposition want to convict and hang the whole of our imported meat trade on quite unsubstantial, inconclusive evidence.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jopling: rose

Mr. Wellbeloved: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I will give way, however, to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).

Mr. Jopling: That was a most extraordinary statement. I do not think that anybody has expressed the desire to ban the import of meat from all sources. If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention to what we have all been saying, he would have known that we are trying only to protect British consumers from meat coming from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Hon. Members opposite are trying to perpetuate a ban on imported meat—agreed, from the countries he described—without any conclusive evidence that those countries are responsible for the recent outbreak. This is scandalous, especially as hon. Members opposite so often claim to be the protectors of individual human rights. Their claim is shown to be nonsense, since in this case they are prepared to convict, condemn and hang people with out any proper investigation. If the Committee of Inquiry comes up with conclusive evidence, it will be right for the House to look at the matter again. Then there may well be a case. At the moment there is no case.
The right hon Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) referred to the details given in the Gowers Report and in a Written Answer given on 8th December indicating the sources from which foot-and-mouth outbreaks have occurred in the past. It is interesting to recall the facts to the House. Birds, in the period 195466, were responsible for conveying 25 per cent. of the total outbreaks in Britain. No one would be so stupid as to suggest that we try to destroy the whole bird population that flies over Britain. That would be impossible.
Another interesting point is that swill has been tracked down as being responsible for 20 per cent. of the total outbreaks in recent years. Outbreaks of unknown origin amounted to 17 per cent. The figure for imported meat and bones is 30 per cent. Thus, 70 per cent. of the total number of cases arose from sources other than imported meat and bones.

Mr. John Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect upon the distinct possibility of many cases attributed to swill being in fact attributable to imported meat?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun, because I was about to turn to the position of swill. Paragraph 31 of the Gowers Report clearly says that the boiling of waste food and swill is a complete safeguard against the conveyance of foot-and-mouth virus. Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer indicates that the owner of the farm in question had boiled some bones but that it could not be claimed that he had always done so effectively.
If it can be said that swill is a source of foot-and-mouth, farmers have it within their own hands, by operating the Regulations requiring waste food to be boiled before being fed to animals, to contain a substantial part of the known sources of foot-and-mouth. If accusations are to be made about the Argentine or other sources, farmers should be clearly told that they, by exercising care and attention in the husbandry of their livestock—by ensuring that the food and swill they serve to their animals is properly boiled and in conformity with the Regulations—could reduce the known outbreaks by at least 20 per cent. Let the message go out that the farmers, too, have a responsibility.
I want to say a few words about the position in the Argentine. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked about Establishment 1408. He made what I though: was an outrageous attack on the Argentine slaughtering and exporting concerns. I have made some inquiries—not in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, but in those quarters which have information about Establishment 1408. I am given to understand that this is a modern and up-to-date establishment.

It is no older than 15 to 20 years. It is a modern, post-war establishment. Only 12 months ago a new section was built on to the establishment entirely designed for the modern, hygienic slaughtering of lambs. The establishment handles 7,000 lambs and about 100 head of beef per day. Slurs upon the Argentine and Argentinians responsible for exporting the meat are quite unjustified.
The right hon. Member for Grantham and the hon. Member for the City of Chester referred to our trade position with the Argentine. The figures given about an unfavourable balance were correct. Our trade has been falling, quite apart from the balance worsening. The figure was £50 million in 1961 as against only £25 million in 1967. However, trade is now on the rebound with Latin American countries. Potential orders are now being considered worth over £140 million for aircraft, missiles, naval craft and telecommunications equipment. I am certain that the A.E.I./G.E.C. complex in my constituency will be delighted to know that there is a possibility of selling telecommunications equipment to the Argentine and other Latin American countries. Orders for earth-moving and road-making equipment are being considered. Negotiations are currently in progress for a £40 million contract for a steel plant and for a hydro-electric generating plant.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester expressed some doubts about the authenticity of this information. I can only refer him to the last paragraph of a letter sent by the British National Export Council for Latin America to Members of the House:
It is for this reason that the B.N.E.C. Latin American Committee feel it is essential that some modus vivendi is worked out which will enable British exporters to take advantage of the much improved Argentine economic situation …
The Committee is most anxious that some way is found of dealing with the possible source of infection other than by imposing a blanket ban on the whole of Argentine meat.
It is grossly unfair that the whole emphasis in the debate should have been concentrated on meat imported from one country, because other countries where the disease is endemic are equally involved in the supply of meat. Brazil, Denmark, Sweden, Rumania, Poland,


Holland and South Africa have endemic foot-and-mouth. They all supply meat to us. They were all suffering from the blanket ban. I assume that they will now be free and that it is only Latin American countries which will continue to be subject to the ban.
It is wrong that we should be inflicting great damage to the prestige of these great countries which contribute a tremendous amount of meat to the world market for human consumption, and it is wrong that we should be damaging their trade without any positive evidence. Those hon. Members who spread scurrilous stories without any evidence should be ashamed of the damage they are inflicting upon friendly countries.
I want to say something about the effect of the ban on beef, if it were not lifted, on our own meat supplies. It has been estimated by a reliable source that there would be a drop of 14 per cent. in the total supply of meat in 1968 if the ban were not lifted. This shortage would mean that the price would go up substantially for the housewife. There would be a lack of choice for her between one type of meat and another—and surely hon. Members opposite want consumer choice. It would mean that, because we did not have imported meat, it would not be possible for the normal market supply of cheaper imported meat to have the effect of keeping down the price of home-killed meat.
If I got the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that he wanted to illustrate some meat prices by quoting the effect of the drop in price from about 4th December.

Mr. Godber: indicated assent.

Mr. Wellbeloved: This is interesting, because I have a complete breakdown of the wholesale prices of meat from the middle of November until the middle of February, and there is some significance in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman should have quoted that week because it is true that in the week following 4th December prices did go down. I am sure that he was not intending to mislead the House, but if he had gone on to the week after the week beginning 16th December, he would have seen that there was a rise. That rise has accelerated

week after week until the current figures for the middle of February. There was only the one week—by coincidence, the week after the one he mentioned—that prices went down.

Mr. Godber: It is important to get the facts right. I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to beef or to all meat.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am referring to Scottish sides, Irish sides and English sides, and lamb of all grades.

Mr. Godber: I referred to beef, mutton and pork as well, so there could be clear variations. My figures were taken from the Ministry itself. I showed the amount of deficiency payment each week. These figures showed clear drops. For pork, there was a substantial fall between early December and the beginning of February. The same sort of thing can be said in relation to sheep and lambs, although they have varied more than the others. It is true that the prices have been higher but I was giving a general overall picture and I quoted a general 9 per cent. increase.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions ought to be brief.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I would not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's figures for pork. But the position on beef is clear. The price has gone up substantially—in wholesale prices, from 4d. to 8d. a lb.—as compared with the same period of 1967. This is a substantial increase for the general public. The retail traders have carried out a survey and have indicated that prices in the shops over this period since the ban have gone up by 20 to 40 per cent.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Devaluation.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The best thing I can do to avoid cross-currents of that kind is perhaps to duplicate the information I have on the prices of meat. I received it from reliable sources and I am prepared to hand it to the hon. Gentleman so that he can assess whether the rise is the result of the ban or of devaluation. It is the result of the lack of imported cheap meat on the market. This has had the effect of keeping prices rising. Perhaps British producers want the ban on imported meat to stay so that their prices can rise.
Do the Opposition really understand that, if the ban continued, the price of beef in the shops would go on increasing in the absence of the depressing effect on wholesale prices? The House should understand that every 1d. increase per lb. weight would mean an increase in the annual bill to the housewife of £10 million. If we had this situation permanently—fortunately it is temporary because of the courageous action by my right hon. Friend in lifting the ban from 15th April—and if the increase of 8d. in the average price of beef were to continue over the whole year, it would mean that the housewives would have to pay about £80 million extra on their weekly meat purchases.
Is that what the Opposition want? I am sure that it is not. Hon. Members opposite really cannot understand the position, or they would not make this claim. We must regain our cheap imported meat—the imported meat which millions of families have enjoyed and which has been coming here for nearly 80 years.
I want to say this to my right hon. Friend. A great many people in this country are delighted to have him not only as Minister of Agriculture but as Minister of Food, and recognise the courage and integrity he has shown in standing up to the hysterical outcry for a blanket ban. From the conversations I have had in recent weeks with members of the butchery trade and of the meat importing trade, and with various foreign exporters to this country, I know that they hold him in the highest esteem and have great respect for him. I hope that he will stick to his guns and that the ban on imported beef will be permanently lifted as from 15th April.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: It was good of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in his peroration to tell us that he had been talking to meat importers in the last few weeks, because otherwise he might have fooled us. The debate opened with both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture in attendance, which was more than symbolic, because this country has a very distinguished and treasured tradition on standards of health as they affect our agriculture

—not merely in respect of animal health but of human health which flows from these high standards.
This, in turn, has thrown certain responsibilities and burdens on the agricultural industry which it is right to expect it to shoulder. But, by the same token, it is legitimate for agriculturists and all those concerned in the rural economy to expect broadly similar standards to be observed by those with whom they have to compete. This, in a sense, is what the debate is about.
Whenever there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, the finger of suspicion has almost inevitably pointed to Latin America. This is not because of any deep-seated antagonism on the part of commercially inspired lobbies, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is because there is a whole body of evidence which points in that direction.
Because of the nature of the disease, of course, one cannot conduct an inquiry and come up with a good simple Sherlock Holmes solution which, at the end of the day, can demonstrate as though in a court of law that there is incontrovertibly a certain source of infection which can be established beyond all reasonable doubt. Trying to trace this disease, partly because of its fantastic rate of infectivity, places immense burdens on the veterinary service. It was not surprising therefore that when the outbreak started in Oswestry there was some concern that this should come from Latin America. This is all the more so, as there was no record of disease then existing in Continental Europe which, after all, was the added factor existing in the early 'fifties, leading to the setting up of the Gowers Committee.

Mr. Oakes: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report he will see that in paragraph 4 it states that there were 3,000 cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Western Germany in 1967.

Mr. Biffen: Paragraph 4 also states:
… but I consider the distance is too great for the disease to have been brought from Germany to Shropshire by birds, or by the wind.
Paragraph 25 of the Gowers Report said of outside sources of infection that they were normally to be considered coming


from Latin America. It went on: referring to frozen meat imported from the Argentine, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile to say:
This is thought by the Ministry of Agriculture to be responsible for more primary outbreaks in England than any other single cause.
It was not then surprising that the Ministry "vets" should have conducted a great deal of their investigations on the sound fear that the area which had been the source of so many infections in the past might yet again, circumstantially, be supposed to be the source of this infection. The conclusion of the report in paragraph 19(i):
I have been unable to discover any possible source of the infection except Argentine lamb.
It is true that the evidence is circumstantial. I think that I would probably carry the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), who has had a great deal more practical experience in the difficulties of establishing the source of infection than perhaps many other hon. Members beside him, when I say that I do not feel that the case is substantially undermined by the fact that the evidence is circumstantial.
If the objection of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford is to do with the circumstantial nature of the evidence, I am surprised that he accepts that his right hon. Friend should—and I quote his words—"take into protective custody lamb imports until such times as the Northumberland Committee has reported." The burden of the case moved by my right hon. Friend was that it was so artificial to distinguish between lamb imports and beef imports that they should both be taken into protective custody. I quote:
… deplores Her Majesty's Government's decision to lift the ban on imports of beef from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic before the Northumberland Committee of Inquiry has reported;…
The talk about some form of capital sentence being exacted as opposed to protective custody, which is the language used by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, is a complete and savage distortion of the Motion.
My central observation on this particularly unhappy epidemic is that our policy has always been one of a gamble.

We have always allowed imports from countries where the disease is endemic, believing on the pattern of experience available to us, that the disadvantages created for us when these outbreaks took place were more than offset by the access of this country to those markets.
I do not think that anyone looking at our experience over the years would say that in the calculation of the balance of advantage we have been wrong. The Minister of Agriculture gave some figures about the number of outbreaks, but I noticed that he was selective about the point at which he stopped. I certainly remember that there was a period shortly after I first came to the House when we had the very happy situation of no outbreaks at all. One can argue that. Quite recently, although the agricultural community suffered from time to time—and it certainly suffered in my constituency—it seems that the policy of imports from Latin America had certain advantages, and these I am prepared to say had to be fully weighed against the disadvantages of the occasional outbreak.
We are, however, in an immensely changing situation. The point on which the House has to reflect is whether the epidemic that we have seen sweep through Shropshire, Cheshire, parts of Wales and into Staffordshire and Worcestershire, far from being an isolated and unhappy experience, is some indicator of what may be the future pattern of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. My right hon. Friend has already quoted evidence to suggest that the particular type of virus involved in this epidemic may well have increased its rate of infectivity and virulence on account of its reaction to the policy of vaccination in Latin America.
These are essentially veterinary matters and assessments, and I do not pretend for one moment to comment on them. It is this kind of factor which must weigh with everyone who desperately hones that this is an isolated incident but fears that it points to future patterns. There are two other considerations which I ask the House to bear in mind. One is the changing pattern of farming, which means that once there is an outbreak it will spread with far more disastrous consequences than it has been prone to do in the past.
For example, there are the higher stock densities, the increasing use of antibiotics,


which may well have consequences upon the ability of stock to resist disease. There is a great deal of change in the techniques of farming. May I demonstrate this and show to what extent, alas, Gowers is no longer the standard reference it once was by quoting from paragraph 170 of Gowers, where it says:
We recommend that in Infected Areas milk lorries should be prohibited from entering farms and that all farmers should put their churns on loading platforms on the roads.
That now reads like a piece of the most mediaeval, archaic literature, certainly in terms of current farming conditions in Shropshire and the Cheshire Plain. Increasingly all the farms have bulk tanks and the milk lorries have to go on to the farms. This is the situation which makes any primary infection of much more serious consequence than it has been in the past. This has not happened suddenly, but I ask hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, to consider this seriously. The alteration of the whole pattern of dairy farming, particularly as it concerns this one special and highly important point of collection of milk and therefore the risk of mechanical transfer of infection, has been substantially changed, even within the last five or six years. It is as recent as that.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that, but I would also like to ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that exactly the same developments have taken place in the Latin American countries. Their methods of protection against foot- and-mouth disease are moving rapidly and are very advanced.

Mr. Biffen: We travel hopefully, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments are right. Everyone would be delighted if they could be assured, and it could be demonstrated to them, that foot-and-mouth is no longer endemic in Latin America. This lies at the heart of the problem.
I come to my second point. Not only the altered pattern of farming is spreading the risk of a high rate of infection, however virulent the virus; there is also the altered pattern of public recreation. The Gowers Report was written in 1952–54, when the number of motor cars in this country was vastly smaller than it is today. Every weekend now people travel through what become infected

areas. The risk of mechanical transfer of infection is immensely increased. I do not wish to make any emotional comment, but one of the most saddening features of this outbreak was the weekend trippers who came from large cities to the constituencies which had practically become charnel houses, as though they were some object of weekend entertainment for the children. No hon. Member has the slightest sympathy with that macabre interest in the epidemic.
But this situation contains very serious consequences for the control of this epidemic. The philosophy of fighting foot-and-mouth is control of movement—animal movement and human movement, not only of the farming population, but of the non-farming population. It is immensely more difficult to apply traditional controls. When we know that there is a hazard of primary infection, as we know on the Ministry's own reckoning and reasoning and from its veterinary officer's report, surely the consequences which flow from it should place a heavy element of caution on our reactions.
I come now to the point on which I quarrel considerably with the Minister. Unless it can be demonstrated that the O1 virus, which is circumstantially presumed to be associated with the lamb imports from Establishment 1408, is unique to lamb imports and could not be found in beef which came from that slaughterhouse or the areas which have been supplying that slaughterhouse, it is very difficult to see on what logical basis the ban has been placed. The farming community feel particularly outraged because they have gone through a great deal of suffering, although it has been financially rewarded—I am not making a partisan plea for the agricultural community—but all the time they have been prepared to accept restriction and dislocation of their working life, as was poignantly and accurately pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), on veterinary advice and considerations. When the judgment came to be made by the Minister, they wanted it to be based on veterinary advice and considerations and not on political considerations.
It is very difficult to resist the conclusion that a compromise was made in the Cabinet, namely, that the ban would apply to mutton but not to beef. I find


it extraordinarily difficult to believe that it was other than a political compromise. If the Minister were to say at the conclusion of the debate, "It was on veterinary advice that we selectively lifted the ban on beef and kept it on lamb", the case which we have deployed would, to put it mildly, be substantially undermined. But I fear that we shall have no such answer, because this has been a political deal. The Minister, who I believe has done great work in trying to help in the containment of this epidemic, deserved a better fate than to be made party to a distasteful Cabinet manoeuvre.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is the second debate on foot-and-mouth disease which we have had within three and a half months. I am sure that everyone who appreciates the magnitude of the peril caused by this scourge both to the rural economy and to the general economy does not begrudge that. It is, however, the firm conviction of all hon. Members on this side of the House that the Opposition would probably rather have discussed the Price Review if it had been less generous. I can well imagine hon. and right hon. Members opposite coming to the House in a hot froth of self-righteous fury to denounce the Government for their failures in connection with the review—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This exordium is entirely out of order.

Mr. Morgan: This point has been referred to before, Mr. Speaker. However, I will not dwell on it.
I accept that raising or maintaining the ban on beef from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic is a matter of the utmost importance. It is inevitable that we should all look at this situation in the context of the present outbreak, but we should be utterly failing in our duty were we not to conceive of a policy for the future against the background of the outbreaks which have occurred in Britain in the last 130 years.
On perusing the Chief Veterinary Officer's Report, it is difficult not to accept the conclusion arrived at therein that the outbreak of October, 1967, was almost certainly due to the importation of Argen-

tine frozen lamb. Objection has been raised by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House concerning circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, we read in the Report that the first outbreak, at Bryn Farm, Nantmawr, near Oswestry, and six other primary outbreaks, which were removed from the infected areas by distances varying from seven to 80 miles, all had some connection with frozen lamb imported from Establishment 1408 at Buenos Aires, in the Argentine. Although such evidence may be circumstantial, it is very powerful evidence indeed in support of such a contention.

Mr. Oakes: There were not six primary outbreaks mentioned in the Appendix, but one, at Carnforth, in Lancashire. That was the only one regarded as primary. In that case, Argentine lamb probably from that Establishment was received and the only things which were disposed of were the cartons.

Mr. Morgan: I use the word "primary" to describe an outbreak which, in the opinion of the Chief Veterinary Officer, could not normally be associated with an area which was already infected. In each of these six cases, there was a distance ranging from seven to 80 miles. In such circumstances, I do not think the word "primary" is a misnomer.
In considering the danger from foot-and-mouth disease which confronts the agricultural community in Britain, the best guide that we can have is the pattern of the past. There have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain every year since 1938. I believe I am correct in saying that the total number of primary outbreaks since that date is over 1,000. Some of them cannot be attributed to any specific cause, but such as have been traced in probability to one source or another have been attributed to a variety of origins—the possibility of carriage by birds or by human agency, by wind from the continent, by the importation of hay and straw. In something like 50 per cent. of those cases there is some connection with the importation of meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.
I quote from the Gowers Report, page 14, paragraph 25, which speaks of
chilled and frozen meat that we import from Argentina (and to a much lesser extent from


Brazil, Uruguay and Chile) where the disease is endemic. This is thought by the Ministry of Agriculture to be responsible for more primary outbreaks in England than any other single cause.
In the Gowers Report no distinction appears to be drawn between the capacity of beef or mutton or lamb to carry this deadly virus to other countries, and I believe that I am correct in saying that since the publication of the Gowers Report in 1954 no research has shown that there is any less tendency on the part of beef than mutton and lamb to be responsible for such a danger. On the contrary, scientists say that the longest living foot-and-mouth virus to be discovered—living some 76 days after the slaughter of the animal—was found in the bone marrow of a frozen bovine carcase which had come from South America.
The Minister has relied upon the circumstantial evidence which is adduced in the Chief Veterinary Officer's Report for testimony against mutton and lamb. If that is a fair method of reasoning, and I am certain that it is, then certainly it is right that we should look at the circumstantial evidence which is directed against beef in this connection. The attitude that I have taken from the very start in this connection is that we should not allow imports of beef into the United Kingdom from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic unless some totally revolutionary discovery by our scientists in the near future shows that the blame attributed to beef in this connection over the decades was wrongly attributed or unless we devise some preventive methods which the experts who advise the Ministry regard as being effective in this situation.
The attitude which has been taken by the Minister is, indeed, a very different one. He has already quoted from his remarks in the House on 4th December, and I should like to mention this again. He said:
Hon. Members know that our veterinary resources are now fully stretched in fighting the present epidemic. For this reason, a new primary outbreak elsewhere could be very dangerous. The Government are, therefore, making temporary changes forthwith in the arrangements for importing meat into Great Britain in order to reduce, as far as possible, the risk of any new primary outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 998.]

It is obvious that the Minister was thinking not so much of the long-term protection which should be given to British farmers but to the short-term problems of combating the disease which was at its very height at that moment. The rationale of his argument, therefore, was that if there were fresh outbreaks the veterinary resources, which were strained to their very limits at that time, would be completely swamped. This is a fundamental hypothesis to which, I believe, the House should pay the greatest attention in this connection.
Indeed, prior to October last year it seemed that, provided there were not a large number of primary outbreaks happening in rapid succession, there was no great cause for concern. In the autumn of 1966 the outbreak in Northumberland, involving some 32 farms, was speedily and efficiently dealt with. In January, 1967, an outbreak in Hampshire, involving 25 farms, was confined to that area, and in December the outbreak in Warwickshire, involving four farms, was fairly easily contained.
It is the irony of the latest outbreak that, despite the most advanced techniques of animal health, improved veterinary services, and far more intensive research than ever before, Britain suffered the most disastrous foot-and-mouth outbreak in its history.
It may be that the O virus that we hear so much about is far more virulent than any strain that has been experienced before. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has already quoted Dr. Brooksby, the Director of the Pirbright Virus Research Institute. I should like to offer another quotation from the same publication, the Farmers Weekly, of 1st March:
Spread in the past has usually been due to accident rather than to special properties of the virus. This time there is a much clearer case for the properties of the virus being, important than on any previous occasion.
It may be—and we must face this—that if a fresh outbreak occurs in the United Kingdom it will be a strain of virus much more virulent than seen before, and that we shall, indeed, have to think in terms not of successive primary outbreaks but of one primary outbreak which will be sufficient to bring about a situation of complete devastation. The point will


have been reached where the resources to combat this deadly disease will have been completely swamped, the point where there will be no alternative to vaccination.
I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister on the courage and wisdom which he has shown in refusing to consider this matter. He has shown statesmanship. I well appreciate the dilemma in which he finds himself. He is both Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food. This is not a competition between agricultural interests and political interests. People have spoken of a political decision, as if that were the alternative. It is a consideration, perhaps, between general urban interests, which are dominant for the majority of the people of Britain, and the interests of agriculture, which are represented by only some 3½ per cent. of the people in the whole of the United Kingdom. I well appreciate the position in which the Minister finds himself, and I consider that the question of an increase in the price of meat is an important one.
I come from a constituency where some 40 per cent. of the insured population earn less than £12 a week. An increase of a few shillings in the price of an essential commodity is bound to bear very heavily on the economy of such families. On the other hand, this is primarily a question involving agriculture, and, although there may be temptations to listen to the case which was put so forcefully and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), in the end this is a case which involves the welfare not only of the farmers but of housewives as well. There could well be another outbreak that would be disastrous for the interests of both.
I believe that it would be most ironic, having set up the Northumberland Committee, if my right hon. Friend were not to request the Committee to make an interim report on what is the most important aspect of its researches. It is not enough to leave it to the good grace of the Committee to decide whether or not to submit an interim report. There is ample precedent for asking such a committee to make a speedy report. Of course, it must take time, it must reflect, and it must conduct inquiries in depth. But, in view of the situation, it is proper

to expect that an interim report should be delivered within a matter of months rather than perhaps a period of two years, which it might take for the Committee to report in full.
If such a request is made and if such a report is tendered, would it not be ironic if we had a sequence of events where in mid-April of this year the ban was removed, perhaps in October we had another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and perhaps in November we had the interim report of the Northumberland Committee urging the Government to reimpose a ban on meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic?
I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend, and I appreciate that this may be a Cabinet rather than a departmental decision. But, in the end, if there is another outbreak, the odium and the anger of farmers and of millions of other people will be upon his head and his Department rather than upon any other body at large.
The Opposition have pontificated with an air of self-righteousness about the continuation of the ban on beef. Despite anything that the right hon. Member for Grantham says, the Gowers Report of 1954 made it perfectly clear that the main peril lay in this direction. It said in paragraph 29:
So long as we have to import meat from South America, and so long as foot-and-mouth disease is endemic on the Continent, there must always be a risk that meat coming from there may occasionally be contaminated.
There is no distinction drawn in the Gowers Report between pigmeat, on the one hand, and mutton, lamb and beef on the other.

Mr. Noble: I know that the hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). The distinction there was made on the direct result of the then Chief Veterinary Officer's advice. It has not been so done today.

Mr. Peart: It was.

Mr. Morgan: It does not lie in the mouths of the Opposition to regard the Gowers Report as Holy Writ when it suits them and dismiss it entirely when it is contrary to their interests. The Gowers Report made it clear that animal health


in Britain was being seriously imperilled by the importation of meat from countries where foot-and-mouth was endemic, and the Conservative Government of that time did nothing about it. I submit that it is not proper for them now to dress themselves in a white sheet of purity and condemn the Government when the present Administration have gone further than they had the courage to go.
I should like in conclusion to refer to the Wrexham issue, as one who has lived and practised there for some eleven years. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) in expressing the view that this is another instance of the ruthless exploitation of a tragic situation for purely personal and political ends. I only wish that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) were present, because I do not think that it is coincidental that the chairman of the public health committee referred to should be the leader of the Liberal group on the Wrexham Council or that it is the habit of the hon. and learned Gentleman to interfere time and time again in the affairs of other hon. Members in their constituencies.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman have preferred this matter to have been left unnoticed and unexposed? Is it not right that a matter of this seriousness should have been ventilated fully by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)?

Mr. Morgan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has put that question to me. As an hon. Member of this House, and disregarding any question of political sides, I should have preferred the ordinary courtesies of the House to be observed. Notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention to raise the matter should have been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones). In addition, I should have preferred it if the chairman of the public health committee had seen fit to consult his committee and called it together in the first instance.
It would have been better if the facts of the case had been put accurately and in such a way as to guide a public which is not sophisticated in these matters into what is relevant. The argument of the

chairman of the public health committee seems to be that if salmonella tiphimurium was present in the consignment of meat—and no one has any certainty—one inspection having been made, if there had been another inspection and it had been present, the meat would have been destroyed, and, the meat having been destroyed, it could not have been the origin of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Oswestry. All that he is saying is that if an accident had occurred to break the chain of causation in the transmission of that meat from South America to Oswestry, the outbreak would not have occurred; if the ship had sunk or if the depot in which the meat was stored had caught fire, the outbreak could not have occurred. We have seen the vicious and ruthless exploitation of a situation for mean short-term party ends.
I much regret that I cannot support the Government on this issue. To do so would be to say that there is no material danger in the importation of beef from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. To do so would be to pretend that there is fresh evidence which draws a distinction between the agency of beef to carry the virus and the agency of mutton and lamb, and no shred of evidence to that effect has been tendered to the House. To do so would be to make a mockery of the setting up of the Northumberland Committee. We have set up a court, but we are arriving at a verdict before the court has had a chance to consider the matter.
On the other hand, I cannot support the Opposition's Amendment. I believe that they, too, are being opportunist and exploiting the situation. In that event, I see no honourable alternative but to abstain.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on this matter. I have been closely connected with the butchery and livestock auctioneering and marketing business all my life. I have had experience of other outbreaks, but, thank goodness, my part of the world did not suffer on this occasion.
I should like to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). The main meat of his speech and his conclusions were


absolutely right. However, the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved)—and I wish that he were present—made several misjudgments of the report of the Ministry's Chief Veterinary Officer on the outbreak. He mentioned that the outbreak could have been caused by either New Zealand or Argentine lamb, but he did not point out that the report said there was no foot-and-mouth disease endemic in New Zealand. He mentioned that he had heard that the plant in the Argentine was modern and up to date. Surely it would be much better to have awaited the report from the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) who is out there at the present time. He also mentioned the consumers. I realise quite well how this outbreak and devaluation have put up the price of beef, but he can obtain very cheap mutton, cheap pork, and, for that matter, a very large choice of poultry. The consumer has a choice of many kinds of meat at the present time.
The increase in the price of beef is of no benefit to the farmer. At present he is receiving considerably less—I would say about 30s. a cwt. less—for his beef than the farmer in the Common Market countries. The increased price of beef at home in the market saves the Exchequer a large sum of money in subsidy payments, but it is not putting much more money into the pockets of the farmers.
I feel that the speech of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford—I cannot understand for what purpose it was made—was not justified. We are not asking for a total ban for ever on imports from the Argentine; we are not asking for a ban on imports from countries which have no foot-and-mouth disease. We are asking for a ban to be kept on until the Northumberland Committee can report whether we should retain a ban on imports from certain countries.
It seems to me that the Motion is an absolutely correct one at the present time. This is the biggest outbreak which has ever been known. It has cost about £35 million. Figures between £100 million and £150 million have been mentioned as the total cost to the community. Nobody knows where the cost ends.
This disaster has been tackled well and energetically by the farmers, the farm

workers, the vets and, indeed, by the Government. The Government, within the limits set by the Treasury, have dealt with compensation sympathetically. Yet all this work may be wiped out and another outbreak made likely by the incomprehensible announcement that the Minister will lift the ban on South American beef on 15th April. In my opinion, a more appropriate date would have been 1st April.
We should remind ourselves of what happened in the countryside. I wish that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and others who represent town constituencies could go to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and see the absolute disaster that is caused to the countryside. I have visited farm after farm. I have valued animals about to be slaughtered; I have seen them slaughtered and buried. Hon. Members who do not come from farming constituencies and who are not brought up with livestock do not realise how closely people become connected with herds of stock. The stockman considers them his own. Apart from the farmer, a true stockman always refers to "my cattle, my horses, my sheep". The loss and distress to the farmer and the farm worker cannot be believed until one has seen it. The loss to livestock hauliers, markets, feedstuff merchants and consumers of the meat and milk through an outbreak like this just cannot be calculated.
Small shopkeepers and others have been mentioned. The cost to the taxpayer is far more than the cost of doing away with the Territorial Army and Civil Defence. All this is being risked again by the action of the Government. I stress "the Government", because I believe that the Minister, left to himself, would gladly have kept this ban on Argentine beef.
We must remember that all the preliminary evidence points to meat from South America, where the disease is rife, being responsible for the outbreak. Circumstantial evidence has hanged people. We are not asking for anybody to be hanged or even to be put in prison. We are asking that the meat from those countries should be kept out of this country, so that we do not risk another outbreak of these immense proportions, until we can be satisfied that proper steps have been taken in those countries and in this country.

Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Gentleman said that circumstantial evidence in this case points to beef. I hope he meant meat. My Chief Veterinary Officer's Report stated that the circumstantial evidence pointed to mutton alone.

Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry. I meant meat. The circumstantial evidence pointed to mutton.
What would have happened if it had been a consignment of beef? Would the Minister have kept the ban on beef? We must remember that beef imports from those countries are five times greater than imports of mutton. If we go on importing this meat from these countries, we are asking our farming community to run far greater risks than should be asked of it.
We have read that the Minister's own veterinary surgeons have asked him to keep the ban on. Whether this is correct or not only the Minister can tell us. Why on earth is another disaster being risked? We are told of sudden marvellous export orders, of which we never heard until this outbreak occurred, which we shall lose and which, strangely enough, we do not seem to hear of again.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We shall not hear about them again either.

Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree. Yet trading with the Argentine has shown an average adverse balance of £48½ million for the past 10 years.
The meat importers are very concerned. The Meat Traders' Federation has written to me. I understand its concern and I fully appreciate the losses which its members are suffering. But I am convinced that their interests and the interests of the consumer can best be served by continuing this ban until we can investigate the whole outbreak. The only thorough investigation to be carried out is to be done by the Northumberland Committee which the Minister has appointed. It seems a little strange that he should appoint a high-powered expert committee like this and suddenly cut the ground from beneath its feet by taking a decision before it has started to act.
The consumer organisations have adopted a reasonable attitude. I have not heard of any consumer organisation putting forward a strong case about the

lifting of the ban. Women's Institutes in my part of the world have written to me asking for the ban to be kept on. One knows that Women's Institutes operate in the countryside, rather than in the towns, but they understand the housewives' point of view as well as that of the farmer.
The Opposition are not asking for a total ban for ever. In the Motion we condemn the Government's decision to lift the ban before the committee has reported. The Government have appointed this committee, and it seems strange that we should devalue it in this way and not allow it to report before taking a decision. Every argument seems to be on the side of retaining the ban at least until the committee has reported.
Why is the ban being lifted? In a brilliant speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) pinpointed the reason. I am convinced that the Minister sincerely wanted to do his best by the farming community, but I think that he was overruled in the Cabinet. He can deny that if he likes. I hazard a guess that there is a strong probability that the Minister has been overruled. The right hon. Gentleman likes to be, and is, very nice to everybody, but on this occasion he should have taken a stronger line. I am convinced that if he had threatened to resign, which was the strongest weapon in his armoury, we should probably have retained this ban on beef as well as on mutton.
I think that the real reason for the decision is that the Government have not been able to adopt a firm attitude, but have given way to the pressures which must have been put upon them by the exporting organisations, and by the meat importing organisations. It is a great pity that this country, having been through this terrible experience which has caused such heavy losses of livestock and of money, and has caused such distress throughout the countryside, should be put in jeopardy again by this extraordinary decision to keep the ban on one type of meat alone, and not on all the meat, which could cause this disease to break out again.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I shall not detain the House for long, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. As


has already been said, there have been six or seven debates on this issue. This illustrates the tremendous concern felt by the House about a disease which reached dimensions which none of us thought possible at the time of the original outbreak.
I appreciate, and I am sure the agriculture industry does, too, that when the Minister announced his decision about a temporary ban on imports of meat from South American countries, this was done, first, to relieve pressure on the services which were brought into being to cope with the disease, and, secondly, to allay a certain amount of public fear about the origin of the disease.
I must make it clear, as my right hon. Friend did, that when he announced his decision to impose a ban on meat from South American countries, it was a temporary ban. There was no illusion about this. He made the point, and it has been emphasised time and again, both in reply to Questions, and during debates which have taken place since, that this was a temporary measure. We should therefore not regard this debate as the end of something in the nature of a permanent ban, because it was made clear that this was a temporary measure.
As the disease progressed, it became obvious that concern would be expressed about future policy, and when my right hon. Friend announced the setting-up of his committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of the Duke of Northumberland, hon. Members on both sides who are interested in the industry were delighted. It was felt that here was an opportunity to go into the causes of the disease, and we still hope that the Committee will produce a report which will stand the test of time. This is why some of us are concerned about the decision to lift the ban on beef.
The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) referred movingly to conditions in the County of Cheshire at the height of this epidemic. Speaking as a representative of the workers in the agriculture industry in the area, I can confirm the tragic losses which both sides of the industry experienced during the epidemic, and are still experiencing. Many of my workers have lost their jobs. They have obtained other work, probably at much better rates of pay, and

for shorter hours of work, and I think it highly unlikely that some of those who have left the industry will ever return to it as stockmen in Cheshire and other affected areas. Many others who are still in the industry have lost substantial earnings, and it is not therefore unnatural that they should view with a certain amount of apprehension any move which might—I go no further than that—have the effect of creating a fresh outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
One has to pass through an experience of this kind to recognise the full depth of a catastrophe like this on British farms. When my national committee considered the matter recently, it came to the opinion that until the inquiry's report was at hand the Minister ought to refrain from lifting the ban. We are grateful that he has decided to continue the ban on mutton and lamb—and, in view of the conclusions of his Chief Veterinary Officer, he could do no other—but we cannot altogether dissociate meat of all types which comes from South American countries. It was in recognition of this that my union's national executive committee came to the opinion that as the ban was to be continued on mutton and lamb, it ought to be continued on beef at least until the Committee's report was received.
When my right hon. Friend announced his decision to maintain the ban on mutton and lamb, but to lift it on beef as from 15th April, I said that I hoped that if his committee of inquiry was able to produce an interim report before that date he would accept its findings. It has been suggested in this debate that an interim report is unlikely, at least for some time. This is unfortunate, because there will be an atmosphere of uncertainty until something comes from the Committee. Some will claim ardently, perhaps with justification, that all our troubles emanate from South America, while others will not agree and will point to the cost to the consumer if the ban continues. But the cost of this tragedy to the countryside has been colossal and a repetition of any magnitude could have disastrous effects on our economy, not only because of compensation or losses but because of the loss of breeding stock, and since stock breeding is a long-term programme, the effect would be felt for a long time to come.
It is true that the agricultural group of our party considered that it would be desirable to maintain the ban, but, in fairness, I must say that that decision was taken before the Reid Report was available, and some members of the group might now have different views.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in sending a veterinary mission to South America to consider the export of meat from there to this country. I hope that, through agreement, we may no longer receive meat affected by foot-and-mouth disease and that arrangements will be made for a closer check to remove this source of infection. But this will take time. I am glad to hear that all is going well for this investigation, and I am sure that both sides will wish the Parliamentary Secretary and the veterinary committee every success.
It has been known for many years that meat from South America was suspect, yet the party opposite did virtually nothing when they were in power. But for this tragedy which has swept the mid-West, nothing would have been done even now. It takes a disaster to awaken the public conscience. However, now that steps have been taken, I hope that the result will benefit both South American countries, with whom we wish to continue to trade, and our own agriculture. But it is not unnatural that those affected should be gravely concerned by my right hon. Friend's proposals. On 14th February, I met a deputation from Cheshire which came to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to discuss their problems and to get some encouragement about the future. I gather that they were reasonably satisfied with what my hon. Friend said, but, had they been aware then of the Minister's decision to lift the ban on beef before the Committee had reported, they might have felt differently.
I cannot support the Opposition Motion, but, with a heavy heart, I must abstain in the vote on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister because of the serious consequences, through loss of earnings and jobs, of this tragedy and the fear that a renewal of importation until the situation has been cleared by the Committee would be wrong. I recognise my right hon. Friend's heavy responsibility in having made this decision. He is taking a calculated risk.

No one can deny this, considering the matter soberly, because, if something happened between now and the Committee's report which could be attributable to meat from South America, he would have to carry the can. Although such assumptions may be unjustified, the responsibility will be his.
I recognise that he has not made his decision lightly and I would like to have supported him, but, because of what has happened to those whom I represent, I could not, in honesty, do so until we have received the Committee's report.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Minister has taken the wrong decision on the wrong grounds, probably because he was out-voted in the Cabinet. He has acted throughout on political rather than veterinary or even properly thought out economic considerations.
He postponed his announcement of his decision on whether or not to extend the ban until 4th March. The significance of this is that considerable sections of the N.F.U. were pressing the negotiating team to break off the Price Review negotiations with the Government if the Minister lifted the ban on imported meat from areas in which foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. By postponing his announcement until 4th March, when the negotiations with the Price Review team were over, the Minister, by a political manoeuvre, removed from the members of the N.F.U. team that means of expressing their disgust at this action.
When the Minister announced his disastrous and despicable decision in the House on 4th March he tried to parry all questions by inviting us to read the White Paper, which was then not available. Had he wished us to read that document and have his statement subject to cross-examination, he could have made the White Paper available beforehand, but this he carefully did not do, and, as we pressed him on the matter, he merely referred us to the White Paper which he knew we had not read and which would not substantiate his case.
The only possible justification for the Minister's continually referring to the White Paper would have been if the report from his Chief Veterinary Officer justified lifting the ban on the ground


that a risk of reintroducing foot-and-mouth disease did not exist. But the report said no such thing, although the Minister, by implication, dragged the support of his Chief Veterinary Officer into his shoddy proposition to lift the ban on beef but retain it on mutton, although the conclusion of his veterinary staff was that the most probable cause of the outbreak was imported mutton, which spread the disease to beef. The right hon. Gentleman's action was lamentable, to say the least.
There are those—I notice that they have not bothered to stay for the whole debate—who put forward the view of the meat trade. They do this with able repetitive ability but with little understanding. I wish that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) had taken sufficient interest in the debate to stay to listen to it. If he studies what has happened to imported meat prices over the years he will see that they are extremely elastic. When, for some reason, there is a meat shortage in this country, it is not long before the price of imported meat goes rocketing upwards. Does anyone really think that if we had another disastrous outbreak the price of imported meat—from Argentine or anywhere else—would not go rocketing up? It always has in the past and there is no reason to suppose that it would not do so again.
To let in the only probable source of infection once more is to take a severe risk with meat prices again. Various utterly unconvincing attempts have been made to show that this outbreak was perhaps not due to imported meat. I asked the Minister at Question Time if he believes that it is a coincidence that for so many years the Republic of Southern Ireland has forbidden meat imports from areas where foot-and-mouth is endemic and has been utterly free of the disease. I have still not received an adequate answer to that Question. Although Southern Ireland is overrun with tourists from all over the world, and although the same birds that fly to England can be expected to fly there[Interruption.]—some of its birds fly here, too—what principally distinguishes its regulations from ours? What is the only feature distinguishing that country from our own which can account for its freedom from this dreadful scourge? It is

surely the maintaining of a total ban on meat imports emanating from areas where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.

Mr. Tony Gardner: Perhaps the hon. Member realises that the Republic of Ireland is a net exporter and not an importer of foodstuffs.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a question not of whether a country is a net exporter or importer of foodstuffs but of whether it brings in a single carcase. That is what matters, and that is why Southern Ireland has a ban.
The Minister has now had the effrontery to suggest that it is in some way improper of the Opposition to use their Supply day to debate this question. This is an immensely important question. He asked why we did not debate the Price Review instead. He knows perfectly well that there is nothing that this House can do now to alter the Price Review. That is why he would much rather that we should debate it. Yet it is not too late for him to undo the folly he is doing. It is interesting to note that some of his hon. Friends have already expressed their determination not to vote with him.
Having parried the Questions on 4th March by referring to the White Paper which was not then available, the Minister has endeavoured to parry our questions today on the basis of what we did eight, 10 or heaven knows how many years ago, not on the basis of what should be done now. The question of what we should be doing now is the justification for this debate and for the passing of the Motion tabled by the Opposition. The Minister knows that this is right, but he is too weak to carry the Cabinet with him and lacks the courage to do the alternative—resign.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. William Edwards: I wish to contribute to this debate, although most of my speech has been taken and excellently delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). I agree with everything that he said. He represents the attitude of nearly all hon. Members from Wales who represent farming constituencies. I also concur to a very large extent with the excellent speech made by


the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). It was an excellent speech and I think the conduct of the hon. Member, who could have derived most political capital out of this situation, has been exemplary during this very unfortunate and tragic time.
I look at the situation like a lawyer. I do not think that any lawyer who looks at the evidence in relation to the foot-and-mouth outbreak could deny that there is a risk related to the importation of meat from countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic. That is the conclusion of the Chief Veterinary Officer. In the report he gave he has made a basic assumption. One thing which has been clear in all the discussions about footand-mouth—I have refrained from speaking before in these debates because of this—is that very few of us really understand what we are talking about. Very few even in the veterinary profession really understand all the implications and dangers of foot-and-mouth. It is caused by various kinds of virus and we do not have the knowledge from scientific research in medicine and pure sciences. It is obvious that all we can do is to relate the existence of this disease to certain countries. It is clear that the Chief Veterinary Officer makes the basis assumption that the importation of meat from countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic constitutes a risk.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), who is also a lawyer, and who will probably put the case for the consumer in support of my right hon. Friend's decision, will not try to deny that the circumstantial evidence which has been put forward by the Chief Veterinary Officer is conclusive evidence. My hon. Friend and other lawyers in the House know full well that men have been hanged on less conclusive evidence than that which the Chief Veterinary Officer puts forward in his Report.

Mr. Oakes: I am ashamed to admit that they have.

Mr. Edwards: With evidence such as this, it is not a great deal to ask my to hang a few carcases of mutton for a few months longer.
I want to refer to the possible pressures on my right hon. Friend when he reached this decision in the Cabinet. If a free vote were to be taken in the House, and if all hon. Members were to relate their constituency interests to the consumer interests and to agricultural interests, the overwhelming majority of hon. Members would have to consider the consumer interests. I am sure that the Cabinet, in reaching this decision, had to take many interests into account.
There is the interest of trade. It is obvious that the Northumberland Committee will make an interim report. I remind the House, in case it is hoped that we shall get a short-term advantage in terms of trade with the Argentine, that the Argentinians are not fools. They know that there is a real danger of the Northumberland Committee's recommending that the importation of beef from the Argentine should be stopped and that the ban on the importation of mutton should continue. If the Argentinians have any sense—it seems from their history of trading with us that they have far more sense than our representatives at the Board of Trade—it is clear that they will not reach any conclusive, enforceable agreement with regard to large contracts until the Northumberland Committee has reported and there is some certainty of the continuation of trade between the Argentine and ourselves.
The Foreign Office interests have been mentioned. The only interests in which the Foreign Office would be involved in relation to the Argentine are the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not disgraceful, this being a Motion of censure on the Government, that the Opposition, who have tabled the Motion, have present only the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who moved the Motion, their Whip, and three other Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Edwards: As I was saying before that point of order, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ruled was not a point of order—incidentally, I have not yet heard


a genuine point of order since I have been a Member—the only possible point at which we are at variance with the Argentine in relation to Foreign Office interests is in regard to the Falkland Islands. If we are concerned about our balance of trade, the annexation of the Falkland Islands as a result of some offence which we may cause to the Argentine would certainly not be a loss to us.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has been in a very difficult position. I am sure that he tried in the Cabinet to secure that a greater proportion of the country's revenue went to the farming community in the Price Review. He had considerable success in that. I am sure that he balanced all the interests of the farming community when he accepted the cabinet's decision. I realise that he could not afford to take a purist view. On the other hand, I am a back-bench Member and I represent in this House only the interests of my constituency of Merioneth. If an epidemic of this kind were to break out again in or around the area where it broke out before, and were it to spread into my constituency, with the kind of farming which we have in my area, hill sheep being the dominant factor in our economy, it would be ruinous.
Therefore, while I sit on this side of the House, and while I should like to support this Government and sustain them in the many policies which they are carrying out, to the advantage of my constituency, I cannot support them tonight. This is the first occasion since I have been in the House when a decision by the Government has not coincided with the interests of my constituency, and for that reason I cannot support them in the Lobby.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am one of those fortunate dairy farmers whose farms were not hit by the disease. For this I, and many other dairy farmers in the South-West, must be thankful. I believe that this last outbreak, which was so widespread, gave agriculture, probably, the biggest fright it has ever had. No doubt, it gave the Minister and his staff the biggest fright they have ever had, too, for it was a most serious outbreak. No wonder farmers are fearful. No won-

der they look for protection in the future.
The Government will have to give the most careful thought to every aspect of the outbreak. It was an entirely new type of outbreak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said. Various new factors and techniques all went to make it unique.
My main objection to the Minister's decision is that it is illogical. It is just not consistent. In my opinion, it is ridiculous to ban South American meat for a time and then lift the ban after a few months. If it was right then, it is right now. In a sense, the Government's decision is unfair to the South American producers themselves. Either their meat is a danger to this country or it is not, and to say that lamb, but not beef, is the villain neither helps them nor protects this country one bit. The danger is still there. As I say, it it was right to impose the ban a few months ago because of the danger, it is right to continue it now.
If the Minister thinks that he is protecting our trade with South America by his decision to lift the ban on beef but not on lamb—I think that he has done it sincerely—he is misguided because the damage has already been done to our trade. If it was right to put the ban on, he should at least keep it on until the Northumberland Committee has reported. We have a right to try to influence the Committee to produce an interim report as soon as possible so that the question can be decided one way or the other and a firm and logical course be taken.
If this illogical decision is, in a sense, unfair to the South American producers, it is much more unfair to the British farmers and consumers. The danger to the consumer is as great as that to the farmer. If the danger was there in October, how much more is it here now. The Minister stands condemned by the South Americans. They are most unhappy about the decision because it does not clear them. He is also condemned by the British farmer and the consumer. He will be in the most dreadful position if we have another outbreak of foot-and-mouth. Everything will descend on his head. It is a risk which I should not like to have taken.
A further serious outbreak would cause even more suffering. The consumer


would suffer the most in the long run, because the cost of living would increase again. There would be disruption of trade and the free movement of lorries and other vehicles, and disruption of sport and other activities, besides a disastrous effect on British agriculture and the loss of valuable herds. That is the cost; that is what is at risk. The Minister is taking that risk, and he cannot wriggle out of that. Despite what has been said, it is his decision. I think that if he had put the case a little more firmly to the Cabinet he could have won the day if he had desired to do so.
One or two more hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall cut my speech very considerably. I believe that there has been some confusion tonight, and there is confusion in the country on this problem. There are two issues. The first is whether we should stop South American beef and mutton imports on health grounds, and the second is whether we should stop them on economic grounds. Those issues are entirely different and do not overlap. If it is necessary to do something about stopping imports of meat from South American producers on economic grounds, we must do it by the proper methods of import control and levies. But that is not the problem we face tonight. The problem is based purely on health grounds. That is why it is so important to urge the Northumberland Committee to give an interim report, so that the matter can be decided quickly one way or the other.
I put the consumer first because of the effect on him in the long run, and I believe that the Minister is putting the consumer at grave risk. I also believe that he has brought a very grave risk back to British agriculture. I am sorry that he cannot see this point. Obviously, he will not change his mind. I wish that he would. I hope—and for his sake I pray—that we do not have another outbreak in the near future.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) for cutting short his speech, for he, like many of us, has been present in the debate almost all the day.
I want to defend what my right hon. Friend has done. He has been criticised for keening his word. On 4th December

he told the House that he was imposing a temporary voluntary ban. It was voluntary because it was temporary. The trade and the other countries concerned would not have agreed had it not been a temporary ban. He told the House that in three months he would review the ban, and in three months' time he did so. When he reviewed it, he had in his possession the Report from the Chief Veterinary Officer.
The hon. Member for Torrington referred to the consumers' interests. I have very few farms but very many housewives in my constituency. Whatever the wholesale price of meat may have been, the price of meat rose very rapidly in butchers' shops throughout the length and breadth of the country at the end of last year. It continued at an unnaturally high price and still remains at a high price. That is very largely because there were no imports of cheaper beef coming in from Argentina. It is not so much that people could not buy that beef, but with the absence of such beef from Argentina the sky was the limit for beef prices. I do not blame the farmers. They were not getting a profit. The farmers suffered terrible losses, but the housewives had to bear the brunt of that particular ban in the price they paid for meat.
Remarks have been made to my right hon. Friend—I do not know whether they were intended kindly; I do not suppose that they took them kindly—to the effect that this was not really his decision, but that he was subjected to Cabinet pressure. My right hon. Friend has a lot of pressures within his own Ministry. He is Minister of Agriculture and, therefore, everyone in the farming constituency is interested in what he does, and may criticise him. He is Minister of Fisheries, and often gets into trouble on fishery questions. But he is Minister of Food and, as such, he owes a responsibility to all 50-odd million people in this country. He has exercised his functions in lifting this ban, bearing well in mind his duty to the consumer as the Minister of Food.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) dealt with the various aspects of this Report, which he pointed out, did not seem to him to be sufficient evidence to ban even lamb. I agree. The Report of the


Veterinary Officer, which seems terribly slanted against South American countries, refers to the fact that a bone was found at Bryn Farm, in the Oswestry constituency. No one knows whether that bone was from a New Zealand lamb, an Argentine lamb or a British lamb.
Was the bone analysed? Were tests carried out on it to find out whether it had any connection with foot-and-mouth disease? We do not know. The farmers say that he boiled the bones on his farm. The Report says that he did not claim that this was always done effectively. Was he asked whether it was done effectively?
It has been said that people are hanged on circumstantial evidence. What we are trying to do in this report is hang the South American meat producing industry. The Argentinians are rightly aggrieved by this report, because, if nothing else, they look to Britain as the country where justice had its origins. They have a great friendship with us, and believe in our sense of fair play and justice. The report says nothing conclusive—this is admitted on all sides of the House—that this originally came from South America. I would say that the circumstantial evidence in the report is extremely suspect.
Six cases were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). He referred to the six cases in the Appendix, and described them as primary outbreaks. They were nothing of the kind. Some of them occurred at the end of December and some in January. These were six cases out of 2,000 throughout the country. They were the only cases attributed by the Chief Veterinary Officer to South American meat. The report said that one of them was Argentine lamb:
… probably from Establishment 1408 …".
It is not even known whether that lamb was Argentine and whether it came from that Establishment. As to the disposal of the meat and bones, they do not know about that. All they know is that cartons were disposed of at the local refuse tip.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Oakes: I have agreed to sit down at Nine o'clock. I am very sorry, but I cannot give way.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) promised the House that his speech would be devastating. It was devastating, but only to the argument put forward by his own Front Bench, that the cause of the outbreak was South American meat and that the ban ought to continue. He said that reports that he had received showed that there might be an epidemic in this country in 1967, because the wave of epidemic seemed to come from Russia, across Europe to this country and we were due for one. In Germany in 1967, there were 3,000 cases. Is it not possible that, in these days of air transport, this could be a source of infection? It would be extremely circumstantial evidence so to suggest, but it would be as good as the circumstantial evidence put forward in the report against South American meat.
I have doubts whether the outbreak in Oswestry in October was the first. There was one in Warwickshire on 29th September, three weeks before. Was the Oswestry outbreak the first? We do not know for certain. It has been stated that the virus can stay alive for 72 days, and the Warwickshire outbreak was less than 30 days before the Oswestry outbreak. Of course, there is no direct evidence to connect the two, but it is as circumstantial as the other evidence produced in the debate and in the report about South American meat.

Mr. John Brewis: Would it make the smallest difference to the hon. Gentleman's argument if it were proved that the disease came from South America?

Mr. Oakes: Indeed, it would. If it were proved conclusively that the meat in question came from South America, my right hon. Friend would be entitled to say, "We will not have your meat". My argument is that this report does not prove it conclusively. It is not proved circumstantially, and consequently the Argentine traders are entitled to say, "You have done us an injustice. That report does not lay at our feet responsibility for this terrible infection, yet we have had the blame for it."
My right hon. Friend equally is getting the blame for not having done something he never said that he would do. He never said that he would continue this


ban until the Northumberland Committee reported, or that he would continue it permanently. I ask my hon. Friends to consider very carefully this report from the C.V.O. If they have done so, they will conclude that my right hon. Friend has done the honourable thing in allowing beef to come in again—beef which has not been criticised in the report. I urge them to vote for the Government because the report fully justifies his action.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: We have had a very interesting debate about a difficult and often controversial subject. I want to pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes). I do not think that the points he made will have any effect on those of his hon. Friends who have thought deeply about this and know a lot about it, because I do not think he is very well informed. If he is trying to argue that an outbreak which took place a number of weeks be ore the outbreak in Oswestry was connected, he should have found out what virus was responsible for each outbreak. If he had, he would have found there was no connection between them.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) who complained about pontificating. The most important point in the speech of my eight hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was that this is the first time in this country that we have seen fit—whichever side was in Government—to impose a ban on all meat from the Argentine. The reason for this was perhaps twofold. I do not think that the Minister would deny that this outbreak has been totally different in character and in scale from anything else which has happened this century. This is a point to which many hon. Members opposite have entirely failed to give attention. I do not think that any hon. Member pretends to be an expert in the particularly complicated virology of foot-and-mouth disease, but it is significant that Dr. Brooksby, probably the best virologist we have in this country, and head of the Government Research Station at Pirbright, took a number of weeks before he said anything about the outbreak. It is perfectly clear why he took that form of action—because there were certain

things in the outbreak which were particularly alarming for the future of agriculture and in relation to the whole problem of foot-and-mouth disease.
In those circumstances, it would not have been wise for anybody to make wild and irresponsible statements which might have caused a great deal more alarm and despondency than was justified. However, there is absolutely no doubt that this outbreak of virus O1 presented the whole veterinary service with a problem on a scale with which it had never before had to deal, and its effects on the country were on a scale which it had never seen before.
Therefore, these were two very significant new factors. I do not think that there was anybody in the House, except the Minister, with the information available to him but not to any of us, who could have come to the House and said, "In these circumstances, I think that a ban on all meat from the Argentine is justified". Therefore, the Minister was a little less than fair when he seemed to imply that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham should have suggested this earlier. As my right hon. Friend explained, he could not conceivably have done so because he did not have the necessary information to take that very serious step.
But this by itself would not have been enough perhaps to justify the Minister in making a decision of that sort. As my right hon. Friend made clear, there was also at that time a very high degree of likelihood that the cause of this outbreak was, again, meat from the Argentine. This fact, combined with the particular type of virus—which apparently hides its visible symptoms for much longer than others and, therefore, can cause a much wider spread of the disease before it is recognised—was of vital importance to the whole agricultural community.
Anyone who knows and studies the problems of the Minister of Agriculture realises that he has to wear two hats at the same time. He is the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food. Inevitably these two duties can, and occasionally do, compete for his attention. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had to consider a third point: if he totally banned supplies of meat from the Argentine, would there still be enough


meat available in this country for the consumer and to keep the price down to a reasonable level?
All these things were done, and could only have been done, by the Minister of Agriculture because he was the only person who had the necessary information. I do not believe there is a Member in the House who criticises the action which the Minister took on 4th December now that the information is available to the House which he then had. But the point which my right hon. Friend made, and which has not been refuted to any extent at all, either in the Minister's speech or in anything that has been said on either side of the House, is that our criticism of the Minister tonight is that he has now stopped taking the advice of his own veterinary staff. This is something which only the Minister can confirm or deny. He has been asked to do so, and he said or indicated—perhaps quite properly—that he was not prepared to do it. He is obviously a good deal more careful in this respect than many of his colleagues, who seem quite openly to criticise their top civil servants in public even if the Press are there. But whether this is so or not, the information which my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) gave to the House, and very properly said that he would not in the debate name the person but that if the Minister wanted full information and the name of the person he would give it to him—

Mr. Peart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Noble: Of course.

Mr. Peart: I have always taken the view that it would be most improper if I commented upon my civil servants in public. I have always taken this view, and even when they have been attacked by some hon. Members I have always defended them. I think it wrong to put civil servants in that invidious position. I hope that I shall always take this attitude as long as I am a Minister.

Mr. Noble: I gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for that, though I could not give it to some of his colleagues in the same way. But that is neither here nor there. [Interruption.] If one looks at the Foreign Office it is a very long list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] But the

point is this. The point which I make is that this is a highly difficult and technical decision to take. The Minister has continuously said to the House that he is making decisions on the advice of his technical advisers, and the House does not mind when he says that, because it is, perhaps, that he is sheltering to some extent behind the technical advice of his advisers.

Mr. Peart: Oh, no. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way please?

Mr. Noble: I have given way already.

Mr. Peart: I just want to settle this. Obviously, the Minister receives technical advice, but in the end the decision is the Minister's decision. If hon. Members want to criticise, let them criticise me. I make the decision. It is very wrong to criticise the men who give advice to the Minister honourably. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this.

Mr. Noble: That is exactly my point. If the Minister says to the House, "I have taken this decision on the advice of my Chief Medical Officer", or "my Chief Veterinary Officer", or "my Chief Food Inspector" it is perfectly all right, but if he does receive advice and then says nothing to the House, and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House ask what advice has been given to him, and when the Minister has over and over again in these debates quoted advice he has been given, we are entitled to assume—I make no more of it than that—we are entitled to assume on this occasion that the advice was contrary.
The next point is this. I know that the Minister is as unhappy about this as those of us who live and work in the farming communities and the farming areas. The Minister has taken a decision which is totally opposed by the National Farmers Union, by the Association of British Veterinary Surgeons, by the Scottish N.F.U.—who, by the grace of God, were not affected by this particular epidemic, but who have, perhaps, a deeper feeling of involvement in all livestock matters even than the English, because we in Scotland rely more on livestock—which is opposed, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) said, by the executive of the Agricultural Workers' Union, which is opposed, as he also said—though he qualified it, very


fairly—by the agricultural group of the Labour Party's side of the House, and which is opposed totally on this side.
The Minister of Agriculture has had to take a decision which he knows has no support from any agricultural, veterinary or kindred society. One realises that it is an important and difficult decision for him to take, but it is his decision, as he has acknowledged.
My right hon. Friend asked if the outbreak at Stratford was due to beef or mutton. The right hon. Gentleman replied that it was due to swill. However, that is not an answer, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether the swill was from beef bones, mutton or from what. The right hon. Gentleman's answer slid away from the main point.
Up until recent weeks, by the consensus of opinion in the House, the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his extremely difficult functions as Minister of Agriculture well. There has been no criticism in the House of the actions that he has taken from time to time to deal with what has been by far the worst epidemic of foot-and-mouth that the country has experienced. He said today that he had taken certain steps to reduce the risk of a recurrence of the disease, and, therefore, we were all interested to hear what steps he had taken.
In the first place, they amounted to a ban on South American lamb. Speeches on both sides of the House have shown clearly how totally illogical that is. It may be right to say that circumstantial evidence points clearly to lamb, but all the other evidence available for the last twenty or thirty years which is known to everyone closely associated with the subject is that it is meat in one form or another that is generally responsible and not lamb.
If it was a matter of putting a given lamb in prison, it might be right to say, "This lamb has been convicted on circumstantial evidence and it will go to prison or to a cold store for ten years". But, as the Minister knows, it is nonsense so say that because lamb was responsible for this outbreak of O1 virus, therefore lamb will be the most likely cause of the next outbreak of foot-and-mouth.
The Minister tried to slide out of it by saying that on a certain occasion we banned pigmeat and not beef or lamb, but he knows that that was rubbish, too, and my right hon. Friend dealt with it completely in his opening speech, to which I suspect the right hon. Gentleman did not even listen—

Mr. Peart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Noble: He did not listen to many points that were made. He will have to read HANSARD tomorrow.
He then said that he had appointed the Northumberland Committee, which the whole House welcomed. But, as I pointed out to him in an interruption, the Northumberland Committee is having its first meeting tomorrow, whereas he has taken a decision whereby it is likely that meat from the Argentine is being loaded into ships this week, and it will be landed here. I pray God that it will not spread O1 virus again.
In what way can the Minister claim that this is a step to cut down the chances of a recurrence of the disease, when meat which may bring the disease again is being loaded into ships within a week of the setting up of the Northumberland Committee? This is tragic nonsense. We realise that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is doing a useful and important job in going round the Argentine visiting the frigorificos and checking up on loopholes which may exist in the inspection of meat. This may well be useful, but it will not stop the recurrence of the disease if the meat is being loaded in the next two or three months. If the Minister studies his own veterinary information, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant Ferris) made clear, it is not just animals which are visibly infected with foot-and-mouth that bring the disease into the country.
The Minister has been only too willing to quote the Gower Report. He will see from that Report that the real threat often is the masked incidence of this disease—animals which are not visibly infected but have already been incubating the virus—and this becomes much more serious with virus O1. These animals may be being killed when there is nothing visible on them, and there is no method in the factories of discovering whether they have the disease, and they are being shipped to this country. Nothing the


Joint Parliamentary Secretary can do—and we wish him the best of luck—will have any serious effect on this problem.
I do not want to interfere in the controversy that went on between the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about who should or should not make investigations into each other's constituency. I merely remind hon. Members on both sides of the House who were here at the time that I never found any reticence in Scotland about hon. Members from other constituencies coming into the debate on typhoid in Aberdeen. But that is neither here nor there. However, the point was made that Establishment 1408 in the Argentine is shipping mutton, lamb and beef to this country. I am not interested whether salmonella was present or not. A few years ago, if it had been Aberdeen, I would have been, but in this debate I am not. If the Minister feels that this particular modern frigorifico, close to Buenos Aires, is shipping these commodities and that the lamb is infected, for goodness sake let him make it clear to the House that no beef will be imported from that frigorifico either. This is not the right solution, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
When we got to the Minister's own statement, I could only wonder for a while at the ponderous ineptitude he showed in trying to trail red herrings across the path of the debate. He said, for instance, that the Opposition did nothing about Gower. But he did not—

Mr. Hoy: It is true.

Mr. Noble: It is true, and I accept it. But he did not explain that in the four years he quoted the total number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth was 469 and the total number of stock slaughtered was under 25,000, whereas in this outbreak 422,000 animals were slaughtered. This is an outbreak on a totally different scale. The Minister did not want to bring out the key point that it is a new type of infection, as far as one can tell, and a new scale of outbreak needing new types of action.
He asked why the Opposition had chosen this subject for debate. Can the

House seriously believe that there is any more appropriate subject for debate at a time when the meat is again being loaded into the ships in the Argentine and coming over here? Is there any more important subject for those who are responsible for livestock and so on? The Price Review can be debated at any time. It is not urgent. Cattle and beef being loaded from the Argentine could present a desperate situation for the country, and, indeed, for the Minister's reputation.
Various other points have been made, but I have not much more time in which to speak. I was interested to hear what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) about disinfectants. These are things which the Northumberland Committee will no doubt consider and advise about.
I was interested in the valid point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery about the danger of boned meat when it comes from cattle as against boned meat when it comes from sheep, because this does not often occur. The House knows that foot-and-mouth disease arrives in this country in two main ways. One is by the migration of birds from the Continent and the other by the importation of meat, and in most instances the infected meat has come from South America, particularly the Argentine.
In December the Minister decided to impose a ban, and, as I have said, the whole House approved of it. Today he said that he was removing the ban. In what way has the situation changed? We have had three clear weeks, and for this we are all profoundly grateful, but the only effect that this has had has been to give, I hope, three weeks' rest and holiday to the thousands of people who have been working day and night trying to combat this terrible disease.
The Duke of Northumberland's Committee has not reported, and cannot do so for many months, and so the situation there has not changed. The system of veterinary inspection of meat in the Argentine has not changed, and, I strongly suspect, cannot change for many months. The veterinary reports have said that it is almost impossible, if not totally so, to find a way of checking animals which have been slaughtered while they are incubating the disease.
Has the Ministry any evidence that the new strain O1 is not likely to strike again? Has it any evidence that it comes only from lamb and not from beef? We have had no such evidence, and, therefore, there has been no change there either. Is there any fresh evidence that uncooked meat or offal, which has been responsible in the past for more than 50 per cent of the known cases of foot-and-mouth disease, will not provide a cause again? If there is any such evidence, the House has not been given it.
The position today is very similar in some ways to the position in which I found myself a year or two ago when I was involved in the disastrous outbreak of typhoid in Scotland. Throughout the country there was deep concern and apprehension. Luckily, there was no loss of human life due directly to that outbreak. The cause of the trouble was meat from the Argentine, processed meat, probably corned beef. I must remind the House, as I did many times during the course of the statements that I had to make, that in spite of all the health checks which were made, in spite of all the work which the Ministry of Health veterinary officers in the Argentine carried out, in almost every case there were grave faults and errors.
In the recent outbreak more than 400,000 animals have perished, with all the misery and loss of money to over 4,000 farmers and their farm workers which this has involved. We do not know the exact figures, although the cost may have been over £100 million. But many farmers and farm workers would, if they could, pay all this money back to have their stock alive again. This is a much more serious problem than just 400,000 dead animals, as anyone who lives in the farming community knows. The Government are today taking an enormous gamble, a risk which, on the evidence presented to the House, is entirely unacceptable. The risk cannot be assessed. The meat will be leaving the Argentine in the next few weeks, and nothing different is being done than was done with the meat which started the epidemic. The Government are taking this calculated gamble with the livelihood of thousands of farmers and the lives of hundreds of thousands of farm animals.
I believe that the Minister is taking this risk—it rests on his shoulders, and I have great sympathy for him—contrary to the advice of every veterinary officer we know. In these circumstances, I believe that his burden is too great, he should have refused to accept it and should have resigned. If he had, he would have had the support of all in the country districts who know the risks involved for our livestock and our farms over the next months.

9.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I will do my best to answer the many questions asked; I have heard almost every word of the debate.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said that my right hon. Friend had to make an extremely difficult decision on an extremely controversial subject. I remember when he was in a fairly similar position, which he recalled, although we never debated the question of the corned beef which was then held responsible for the typhoid outbreak in Aberdeen. On that occasion, in June 1964, he said:
It was only last year that we could, with any certainty, impute typhoid to corned beef at all. There is no certainty yet that corned beef is involved in this epidemic, although the inquiry will be looking into this. The withdrawing of vast quantities of food, on what could be the scantiest of evidence did not seem wsie at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1964; Vol. 696, c. 49.]
This is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I did not dispute it at the time because we knew the position which he faced. It was obvious that above all, we did not want to alarm the people more than they had already been alarmed. When the Report was presented, some not altogether pleasant things were said about those who handled that epidemic. I merely remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said then.
He said tonight that my right hon. Friend had ignored advice, but my right hon. Friend did nothing of the kind. He published the advice of the C.V.O. for all to read. Clearly, the decision is the Minister's. Just as on that previous occasion and despite the outcry the right hon. Member for Argyll accepted the responsibility for that decision, so my right


hon. Friend does not wriggle from this one—

Mr. Noble: It is always easy to say things in retrospect, but I would certainly not have acted as I did unless all my technical advice had been in that direction.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman may say that now. I merely reported what he had said at the time. I did not do him an injustice because I used the words he had used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) pointed out that the Minister was in a difficult position and had a difficult decision to take. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) agreed with that. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend did not and does not seek to wriggle out of that position. He made his decision and accepts the responsibility for it, as we in public life must do. One can only hope—indeed, I hope and believe that he was correct—that my right hon. Friend has taken the right decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) reminded the House—that was at about 9 p.m.; I regret that very few hon. Members were in their places at the time—the Minister also has a responsibility to Britain's housewives. That is another of his jobs. In addition to looking after the farmers and those connected with the trade, he has a direct responsibility to the public.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Hoy: I have many questions to answer and I will not give way, particularly since the hon. Gentleman has not been here all day.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) criticised Dr. Brooksby, saying that he had been too reticent and timorous in coming forward with his information. That was not the line taken by the right hon. Member for Argyll, who said that Dr. Brooksby had acted in a most responsible way and had treated the matter with all the caution it deserved before giving his opinion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. I thought it a little unfair of the hon. Member for the City of Chester to

make those remarks about Dr. Brooksby, but I will return to this matter later.
The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) spoke of certain letters that had been sent to my right hon. Friend by the I.P.C.S. I confirm that my right hon. Friend received two letters from the Institution. The I.P.C.S. has a legitimate interest in foot-and-mouth disease epidemics because they impose a heavy burden on the professional members of the Ministry's staff, whom the Institution represents. However, I feel that the I.P.C.S. went too far in commenting on an important Government decision of public policy which extended considerably beyond the interests of its members. In my view—and I hope I have the support of the Front Bench opposite on this—it was less than courteous of the Institution to publish its letters without even giving my right hon. Friend prior notice.
Apart from domestic agricultural considerations, there are considerations of food supply and delicate matters of international policy to be considered. Civil servants have a responsibility to the Government, just as my right hon. Friend pointed out earlier that Ministers have a responsibility to defend their civil servants when they are attacked. I trust that right hon. Gentlemen opposite support this view.
I understand that when I was out of the Chamber there was a dispute between the right hon. Member for Grantham and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) about meat prices. Auction and wholesale prices rose during November and December, but that happened for a variety of reasons, some seasonal and some due to the dislocation of the market. As for South American imports, tonnages had fallen away before 4th December for commercial reasons which will be easily understood.
What matter, however, are not the factors that affected prices then, but what prices might be in future according to whether or not there is normal access to our markets for beef. This at best can be an estimate, but in the medium term the continuation of temporary suspension would probably have raised wholesale beef prices by about 10 per cent. and meat prices as a whole by about 5 per cent. above what they would otherwise


have been. That is the best estimate we can make, but when dealing with prices of that kind which in the ultimate have to be paid by the housewife, attention has to be paid to that.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman says that prices have risen by 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. more than they otherwise would have been. Is he saying above existing levels or the levels existing then with some other variations?

Mr. Hoy: No, I am speaking of estimated levels. That is the advice I have received from experts and the right hon. Gentleman says that I must accept their advice. That is the best advice I have had so far.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) told me that he would have to leave the Chamber before I made my speech. I want to pick up a point he made as to whether lamb is boned or not. The same point was picked up by the right hon. Gentleman. I put them together because both are wrong. In that part of the country lamb is generally boned. It is common practice there, so it was as likely to come from there as from anywhere.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester said "Mr. Speaker, I propose to deliver a devastating speech." Anyone who describes his speech in that way will expect to have a reply. He spoke of the very poor liaison between Pirbright and the field services. The hon. Member completely misunderstands the position. There is a very full and close liaison between the Ministry's Chief Veterinary Officer and Pirbright. The Chief Veterinary Officer passes information gained from Pirbright to our field services. This obviously is a very clear and effective channel of communication, which is continually open. Co-operation between the Ministry and Pirbright is very full indeed. Our Chief Veterinary Officer and Dr. Brooksby of the Animal Virus Research Institute keep in constant contact. The Chief Veterinary Officer invited Dr. Brooksby to send a small team of experts to the area to make epidemiological studies. This work still goes on and the results, no doubt, will be available to the Northumberland Committee, so I hope the hon. Member will not repeat his statement.
There was no lack of instruction at all. A veterinary officer was in charge of each centre and gave full instructions to his team. The manual of instructions, for which the hon. Member asked, is regarded as a very large tome. Anyone who has been at the Ministry or at the Scottish Office will know what it looks like. There are about 400 available, but in a tremendous epidemic of this kind obviously we had not manuals to hand to everyone. On one occasion the hon. Member gave us some thanks for the excerpts taken from the manual which farmers required, on the way in which we distributed them widely and, I hope, smartly. I hope that the hon. Member will not forget that we supplemented all this information with television broadcasts, to which he paid tribute. All that having been done, it was a little unfair of him to say that there was lack of instruction. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a lack of liaison with the river hoards. This just is not true. The river boards were in no doubt about the instructions to be followed. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned a representative of a river hoard who apparently did not quite understand what it was all about.

Mr. Temple: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said a great deal about what I said. I said that a chief consulting engineer—in fact, to the Mersey and Weaver River Authority—who was responsible for a great deal of this work, never had a manual given to him. He was a very responsible and high-up man.

Mr. Hoy: I am sure that such a man would accept his responsibility and would not just be waiting for a manual. I should have thought that he would be able, being in such a position, to do the job, All the river boards played a very valuable part in co-operating in the burial of the animals, and we are extremely grateful to them.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say something about disinfectants, as did the right hon. Member for Argyll. Our veterinary officers use washing soda and, where appropriate, a 5 per cent. solution of formalin. It is a solution that they use on all infected premises. These substances are specific in their effect on foot-and-mouth disease virus. It is true that other disinfectants, active because of their alkaline or acid properties, have been put


forward, but they must be tested for other properties—properties such as stability and safety—before we can add them to our list. We have already arranged for this to be done.
We have never heard of one quite so violent in its effect as the one which the hon. Gentleman said worked 800 times faster than that which we used. When I heard the hon. Gentleman say that, I had visions of the animal disappearing along with the virus.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the farmer had to stand on a pad for two and half hours to get proper disinfection. I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time and have a great respect for him, but I advise him that when he speaks in that way he speaks nonsense and does not do his case any good. Disinfectant would be retained on the surface of the material. If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman's theory, a farmer would have to keep his hands in a bucket of washing soda, which is a disinfectant, for 15 minutes. This just is not true. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that his was a devastating speech, but not in the way that he meant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford asked me some questions about conclusive evidence and guides. In this matter is is very difficult indeed to get conclusive evidence about the disease, the way it is carried, or about the people concerned. Like the Tory Government, we have taken certain action. Some hon. Members have called in evidence not only the question of animal health but also the assumed risk to human health from imports of meat. This may arise in any country from the way in which the meat is slaughtered or handled, whether or not there is any epidemic or disease in that country.
I emphasise that, as my right hon. Friend said, we already have in existence a mechanism for a continual watch on any possible hazards to human health. In particular, meat plants in supplying countries are inspected by officers of my Ministry, and we do not import from any plant which is not satisfactory. This process is a continuing one. In view of the publicity which has been given to salmonella in meat originating from

Establishment 1408 in the Argentine Republic, following sampling of mutton from this establishment by the Port of London Health Authority on 31st May our Veterinary Attaché in Buenos Aires was asked to reinspect the plant. After inspection, he proposed that certain action should be taken within 20 days. On 24th July, he recommended that it should be cleared. The Veterinary Attaché visited this plant again on 31st August. I mention these facts to show the great care which is taken—I do not claim credit for this Government alone; all Governments have done it—to protect public health in this country from any dangers from imported meat.
I cannot, therefore, accept that the Government's decision on meat imports following our review and study of the report of the Chief Veterinary Officer should be linked with public health considerations. The two matters are separate. If we become aware of any real risk to public health, we take action immediately.
I am told that, while I was out of the Chamber, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) suggested that the Minister had deliberately postponed his announcement on the meat import ban till 4th March. The farmers, he said, were threatening to break off the Annual Review discussions at that time if the Minister decided to lift the ban. All I can say is that there is absolutely no truth in what the hon. Gentleman said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If he had taken the trouble to consult the N.F.U., the hon. Gentleman would have found out that what he intended to say in the House tonight was quite untrue.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman has been interjecting all afternoon. Let him wait for a moment. His suggestion was absolutely scurrilous. If he has the decency to wish to withdraw, I am prepared to give way to him now.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The facts stated by me were absolutely true. The Devon County branch sent a resolution to the national headquarters calling on the union to break off its negotiations if the Minister readmitted the meat.

Mr. Hoy: I can only repeat what I said. The hon. Gentleman said that it


was the N.F.U., and now he says that it was a resolution sent in by the Devon branch. In decency, he ought to have withdrawn.
I was asked about the number of attachés we have. Our attachés' interests cover both animal health and public health matters, and they are in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Establishment 1408 is in Argentina, and is only one among some 30 establishments in the four countries on the approved list for exports of various types to Great Britain.
Hon. Members have tried to show that our action in resuming normal trading arrangements for beef imports was premature. That is what the Motion is about. My right hon. Friend explained the important steps which we have taken, some immediate and some for the longer term, to improve our safeguards against the importation of foot-and-mouth disease. We ask hon. Members to approve the action which we have taken. I am confident that it represents a fair and balanced judgment of many agricultural, commercial and international interests. We are very much aware of the scale and the cost of the epidemic, which has caused grievous loss and shock to the agricultural community. It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend announced on 4th March new measures to guard against a repetition.
The risk of introducing foot-and-mouth disease into this country in meat and other animal products has long been recognised. It is not something which occurred in the last two or three years. Following the visit of the mission headed by Lord Bledisloe in 1928, South American countries introduced regulations designed to reduce the risk of importing the virus from South America into this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was a long time ago."] Yes, but I am getting more modern as I go along. These regulations covered inspection at the estancias intended to ensure that animals for export did not come from places where there had been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
From that stage we have gone on improving all the time. Veterinary officers of the Ministry are stationed in South America, and we are now taking steps to look again at these arrangements in co-operation with South American countries. That is what the technical dis-

cussions will be about. We are setting this in train at once, and this indicates the importance we attach to it.
We shall be receiving a report from the Northumberland Committee on the seriousness of the recent epidemic which has shown that a new and thorough look at our whole policy on the control of foot-and-mouth disease in this country is needed.
In short, we have done three things. First, we have decided not to allow the import of mutton and lamb from countries where the disease is endemic until we have considered the conclusions of the Northumberland Committee. Second, we are taking a searching look at the safeguards on meat imports. Third, we have commissioned a full and considered study of the animal health problem. These things have all been done in the past few weeks, and my right hon. Friend is to be commended for the speed with which he acted. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, many hon. Members are to be commended. I do not seek to deny some credit to the hon. Member for the City of Chester who was most helpful while the epidemic was on. We had many meetings at our office, and I am certain that he found them just as helpful as we did.

Mr. Temple: indicated assent.

Mr. Hoy: That was the spirit in which we worked both at the Ministry and with those outside. It would not be amiss, now that the matter is being debated, if I once more expressed our thanks to the veterinary surgeons who lent assistance, not only our own, but veterinary surgeons from all over the world. I also pay tribute to the women's voluntary services, who gave assistance, and to the Forces. I thank all who have assisted. [Interruption.] Surely it does not come amiss to say "Thank you" to people who have helped?
Hon. Members opposite have tried to tell us that our judgment of the balance of interests has been wrong. I have listened to the whole debate, and they have failed to show this. When they were in office they did not take the view that we have taken. Despite all the outbreaks in this country they never once took the trouble to ban the meat. We did it, and as a result we have this debate. If my right hon. Friend had done nothing


about it, the debate would never have been held.
We consider that we have exercised our responsibility to the consumer, the farmer, the trader and the butcher in a fair and reasonable way. We have not been shaken by anything said in the debate and I confidently ask all my hon.

Friends—and perhaps even the Conservative hon. Member for a Glasgow constituency who called for the action we have taken—to join us in the Lobby and show our contempt for the Motion.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 237.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Albu, Austen
Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunn, James A.
Hynd, John


Alldritt, Walter
Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, Sir Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth, (Exeter)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edelman, Maurice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Barnes, Michael
English, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Barnett, Joel
Ennals, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Beaney, Alan
Ensor, David
Judd, Frank


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kelley, Richard


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Faulds, Andrew
Lawson, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Binns, John
Finch, Harold
Ledger, Ron


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, John (Reading)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foley, Maurice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Boston, Terence
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Forrester, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyden, James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lipton, Marcus


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Bradley, Tom
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gardner, Tony
Luard, Evan


Brooks, Edwin
Garrett, W. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
McBride, Neil


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
MacColl, James


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
MacDermot, Niall


Buchan, Norman
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gregory, Arnold
McCuire, Michael


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Maclennan, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Chapman, Donald
Hamling, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coe, Denis
Hannan, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Manuel, Archie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Haseldine, Norman
Marks, Kenneth


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hattersley, Roy
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Crawshaw, Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Maxwell, Robert


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Henig, Stanley
Mayhew, Christopher


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, J. J.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Millan, Bruce


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Molloy, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moonman, Eric


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howie, W.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Delargy, Hugh
Hoy, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dell, Edmund
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Emrye (Ayrshire, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dickens, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Albert




Neal, Harold
Reynolds, G. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Newens, Stan
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thornton, Ernest


Norwood, Christopher
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tinn, James


Oakes, Gordon
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Ogden, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


O'Malley, Brian
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' as)
Varley, Eric G.


Oram, Albert E.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Orbach, Maurice
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wallace, George


Orme, Stanley
Roebuck, Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Oswald, Thomas
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, David


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wellbeloved, James


Padley, Walter
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Ryan, John
Whitaker, Ben


Paget, R. T.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Palmer, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert
Whitlock, William


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Park, Trevor
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Parkyn, Bran (Bedford)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Snow, Julian
Winnick, David


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Woof, Robert


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wyatt, woodrow


Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Yates, Victor


Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Randall, Harry
Swingler, Stephen
Mr. Harold Walker and


Rankin, John
Taverne, Dick
Mr. John McCann.


Rees, Merlyn
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hastings, Stephen


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hawkins, Paul


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hay, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dance, James
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Awdry, Daniel
Davidsodn, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Baker, W. H. K.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Heseltine, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Higgins, Terence L.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hiley, Joseph


Batsford, Brian
Doughty, Charles
Hill, J. E. B.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Holland, Philip


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Eden, Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, Richard


Bessell, Peter
Emery, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)


Biffen, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hunt, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Iremonger, T. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Eyre, Reginald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boardman, Tom
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Foster, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Braine, Bernard
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brewis, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Kershaw, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. Sir Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kimball, Marcus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Glyn, Sir Richard
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bryan, Paul
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kirk, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Timothy


Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhew, Victor
Lambton, Viscount


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Raymond
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Campbell, Gordon
Grant, Anthony
Lane, David


Carlisle, Mark
Grant-Ferris, R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Channon, H. P. G.
Grieve, Percy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Clark, Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Longden, Gilbert


Cooke, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Loveys, W. H.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Lubbock, Eric


Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Costain. A. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
MacArthur, Ian


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(RossSCrom'ty)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Crouch, David
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Crowder, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
McMaster, Stanley




Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Maddan, Martin
Peel, John
Tapsell, Peter


Maginnis, John E.
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Peyton, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Marten, Neil
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Teeling, Sir William


Maude, Angus
Pink, R. Bonner
Temple, John M.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Pounder, Ration
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mawby, Ray
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tilney, John


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Prior, J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, peter (Torrington)
Pym, Francis
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Miscampbell, Norman
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Monro, Hector
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wall, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Webster, David


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Murton, Oscar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Royle, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
St, John-Stevas, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Onslow, Cranley
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sharples, Richard
Wright, Esmond


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wylie, N. R.


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hn. George


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Stainton, Keith



Page, Graham (Crosby)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Jasper More.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 236.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fernyhough, E.


Albu, Austen
Chapman, Donald
Finch, Harold


Allaun, Frank (Salford, P.)
Coe, Denis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Alldritt, Walter
Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allen, Scholefield
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Peter
Conlan, Bernard
Foley, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Cronin, John
Forrester, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Barnes, Michael
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald


Barnett, Joel
Dalyell, Tam
Galpern, Sir Myer


Beaney, Alan
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Gardner, Tony


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Garrett, W. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Binns, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gregory, Arnold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Delargy, Hugh
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Boston, Terence
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dickens, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Boyden, James
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A.
Hamling, William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunnett, Jack
Hannan, William


Brooks, Edwin
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth, (Exeter)
Harper, Joseph


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Haseldine, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hattersley, Roy


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
English, Michael
Henig, Stanley


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ennals, David
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ensor, David
Hilton, W. S.


Cant, R, B.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hooley, Frank


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas




Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roebuck, Roy


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Maxwell, Robert
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Howie, W.
Mayhew, Christopher
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hoy, James
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, J. J.
Ryan, John


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hynd, John
Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skeffington, Arthur


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Slater, Joseph


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Small, William


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Snow, Julian


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Murray, Albert
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Neal, Harold
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Newens, Stan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Norwood, Christopher
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oakes, Gordon
Swain, Thomas


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Brian
Taverne, Dick


Kenyon, Clifford
Oram, Albert E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Orbach, Maurice
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lawson, George
Orme, Stanley
Thornton, Ernest


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Turn, James


Ledger, Ron
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Tomney, Frank


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Padley, Walter
Urwin, T. W.


Lee, John (Reading)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Varley, Eric G.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Palmer, Arthur
Wallace, George


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Park, Trevor
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wellbeloved, James


Lipton, Marcus
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Whitaker, Ben


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Luard, Evan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitlock, William


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pentland, Norman
Wilkins, W. A.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McBride, Neil
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


MacColl, James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McGuire, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Probert, Arthur
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mackintosh, John P.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Maclennan, Robert
Randall, Harry
Winnick, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn
Woof, Robert


MacPherson, Malcolm
Reynolds, G. W.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Yates, Victor


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Harold Walker and


Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' as)
Mr. John McCann.


Marks, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Braine, Bernard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver


Astor, John
Brewis, John
Crouch, David


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crowder, F. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Baker, W. H. K.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Currie, G. B. H.


Balniel, Lord
Bryan, Paul
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Dance, James


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullus, Sir Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Campbell, Gordon
Doughty, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Bessell, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Biffen, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Henry
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cooke, Robert
Emery, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Errington, Sir Eric


Blaker, Peter
Cordle, John
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Boardman, Tom
Corfield, F. V.
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Eyre, Reginald




Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pym, Francis


Foster, Sir John
Lane, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Glyn, Sir Richard
Longden, Gilbert
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Loveys, W. H.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Goodhart, Philip
Lubbock, Eric
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian
Royle, Anthony


Grant, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Grieve, Percy
McMaster, Stanley
Scott, Nicholas


Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sinclair, Sir George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marten, Neil
Smith, John


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, Anthony


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tapsell, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Teeling, Sir William


Hay, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tilney, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hirst, Geoffrey
Murton, Oscar
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Hordern, peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John
Webster, David


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Woodnutt, Mark


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, Ian
Wright, Esmond


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, John
Wylie, N. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner



Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. R. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,
That this House taking note of the Report on the origin of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic of 1967–68, approves the action taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve the safeguards against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into this country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting, at any hour though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (CALF SUBSIDIES)

10.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this Howe on 4th March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested that we should also discuss the second Motion—
That the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
It is a matter for the House and not for me. I understand, however, that it has the approval of both sides of the House. So be it.

Mr. Buchan: The scheme falls into two parts. Part I provides for the payment of subsidy on live calves born during the three-year period up to and including 29th October, 1970, and Part II provides for payment on carcases of home-bred cattle which have not earned subsidy as calves but which are of a standard eligible for fatstock guarantee payments and which are certified during the three-year period 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1971. These two ways of claiming subsidy will be better recognised in the farming world as "Stage A" and "Stage B". Three years is the maximum permissible duration for a scheme under the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act, 1952, but schemes can, of course, be amended, if necessary by a variation scheme within the three years.
So far as Stage A of the scheme is concerned, this continues the provisions contained in earlier schemes for paying subsidy on live steers and heifers of suitable beef potential other than heifers of the four main dairy breeds. These provisions differ from those in earlier schemes in only two respects.
First the scheme no longer contains provision for the marking of certified calves. This is now provided for in the new Supervision and Enforcement Order.
Secondly, my right hon. Friends have taken the opportunity to provide for pay-

ment on calves which are over the specified age limit at the time of certification where the reason for the delay in inspection and certification was to avoid the risk of spreading or introducing animal disease. This is a sensible provision which will do much to remove anxiety from the minds of farmers in foot and mouth infected areas at times when, quite properly, a temporary stop has to be put on farm visits by Ministry officials. In these circumstances, so long as they put their application in at the normal time, farmers will not lose their money if, when the animal is eventually inspected, it is found to have already shot its incisor teeth. The House will be glad to know that similar arrangements have been operating on an exceptional basis over the last few months.
Part II of the scheme is entirely new. This is the first statutory scheme providing for the alternative method of claiming calf subsidy payments on approved carcases although, as hon. Members will know, payments under the authority of the Appropriation Act have been made, under arrangements similar to those provided for in the draft scheme, since September, 1965, pending the necessary legislative authority contained in the Agriculture Act, 1967. The extended arrangements were introduced principally to enable subsidy to be paid on heifers of dairy breed which are fattened for beef. This class of animals was formerly excluded from subsidy because of the risk that they might, after receiving subsidy, be used for dairying rather than beef. This problem has been overcome by providing for payment on the hook. This widening of the scope of the scheme and its recognition of the value of the properly finished dairy heifer as a meat producing animal has been generally welcomed.
Experience of the Stage B scheme so far has shown that the majority of presentations at this stage are indeed dairy heifers. This was what we expected. Another benefit is that animals which just fail to qualify for subsidy as calves now get a second chance to earn subsidy.
I now come to the Order providing for the policing of the subsidy payment, the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order, 1968. We already had provision for Stage A, of course, but Stage B is administered jointly with the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme and this has called


for some inevitable extension of the measures for ensuring that subsidy is paid in proper cases only.
Before describing the provisions of the order now before the House, I think I should remind hon. Members that sums upward of £28 million are paid out annually in calf subsidies. I think it important to mention this, because I am sure that this will make clear to the House the need for these safeguards.
Briefly, the Order makes it an offence to seek double payment of subsidy and provides for the marking of certified calves and carcases in such a way that an attempt to obtain a second subsidy payment would be detected. An identical provision for the marking of calves has always appeared in earlier Calf Subsidy Schemes. In support of these marking provisions, the Order also provides authority to seize the ears of carcases in cases where these constitute vital evidence which may be needed for prosecutions.
The other provisions of the Order are similar to those contained in the Fat-stock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958, for supporting the arrangements for deficiency payments on fatstock with which, as I have said, Stage B of the calf subsidy is closely linked. In particular, the new Order gives the right to inspect records in any investigation connected with calf subsidies. No new burden of record keeping is imposed by the Order; those concerned will simply be required to produce for inspection such records as they already maintain for other purposes.
In addition to the requirements as to records, the Order contains powers of entry for authorised officers at all reasonable times. There is one particular point here to which I think that I should draw the attention of the House. This is the power extended to authorised officers of the Meat and Livestock Commission in Great Britain. Hon. Members will recall our discussions on this matter in Standing Committee on the Agriculture Bill and that my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that the exercise of such powers by an officer of the Commission would be strictly limited to those occasions when it was necessary for him to accompany the Minister's own authorised officers. The Order prescribes accordingly.
The powers taken by this Order are, in our view, necessary to safeguard public money and I feel quite sure that the House would wish to see that there are proper safeguards of this nature.
I have just made reference to the Meat and Livestock Commission. Hon. Members will have seen that both the scheme and the Order authorise Ministers to delegate certain functions to the Commission. This power is confined to the certification functions at Stage B and their policing and is taken now in readiness for the time when the Commission will take over the day-to-day administration of the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme and the Calf Subsidy at Stage B. Arrangements for this are now being made and will be announced in due course.
Calf subsidies have been paid for many years. They are accepted as a valuable method of assistance to our beef industry, and have the particular merit of enabling subsidy to be injected relatively early in the production chain. Over the years, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of calves retained for beef. The calf subsidy has clearly served to encourage such retention. To this long-standing method of support, we have added an extra widening of its scope. We believe that this subsidy continues to have an important part to play in our system of support for this vital section of the farming industry.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Much of this is an old friend. We should remember that the purpose of the calf subsidy is to get more calves, which is a proper thing to say, since, in the first few years since 1960, the increase in calves certified—I have these figures from an answer given on 19th June last year to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling)—was 8 per cent. in 1962–63, which steadied down to 6 per cent. in 1964–65 and 1965–66. Alas, the estimate for 1967–68 is that it has come back to 4 per cent., and the Government should not be complacent about this situation.
This is a successor to the scheme which ran from 30th October, 1964, to 29th October last year. Part I is on fairly well-established and recognisable lines, much of it pretty well the original


1952 legislation. The hon. Member referred to paragraph 6(2), the latitude allowed in inspection dates when there is risk of animal disease. In the light of the subject we discussed earlier, that is obviously a move in the right direction. One might rightly pay tribute to it. It was the suggestion made in the debate on 7th May, 1964, on a similar Order by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson). I am glad that, nearly four years later, the mills of God have at last ground to fruition.
The minimum age for certifying was taken out in the 1964 Scheme. It was then announced that calves under eight months, other than hill calves, should not be inspected. Although the minimum age was moved, there would not be an inspection of calves under that age. What has been the practice? We asked, what was the point of removing the minimum age if the practice was not to be changed? Has a good degree of flexibility resulted? If not, our inquiries about removing the statutory minimum would appear to have been valueless.
Part II of the Calf Subsidies Scheme was, I think, conceived in the 1965 Price Review. More recently it stemmed from Section 10 of the 1967 Act. What is meant by the words in paragraph 10, "approximately equivalent"? This is the payment to be made and it is to be
approximately equivalent on the average to the rates of subsidy which would have been payable under Part I".
Why is it not precisely the same rate as the calf subsidy itself?
In paragraph 11 it is quite clear that any Ministerial functions which are conferred under Part II of the Scheme may be delegated to the Meat and Livestock Commission. I am sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman remark that this applies to certification only. If I read it aright, any powers under Part II surely include payment of subsidy, which is referred to in paragraph 8, because that is in Part II. It clearly excludes payment under paragraph 4, which is in Part I, but I should have thought that it applied not only to certification but brings in payment under paragraph 8.
This seems to conflict with the assurance given by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) in Committee on the Agriculture Bill. I will

quote from the Report of the sitting of that Committee on 7th July, 1966. On the first going through of the Bill, we asked for and got an assurance that the question of grading would be delegated to the Commission. The payment of subsidy would continue to be made by the Ministry, and enforcement would still remain in the hands of the Minister.
On the second run through the Bill, I put the specific question and asked for confirmation. This is what the hon. Gentleman said:
First, the Commission will take over certification of individual animals and carcases at live and deadweight centres. Second, payment of subsidy will continue to be the responsibility of the Headquarters Payments Unit of the Agricultural Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th July, 1966; c. 123.]
It seems to me, therefore, that that assurance has been departed from in the powers which are given under Part II of the Scheme, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why that should be so.
Now, the Enforcement Order. I find Article 7(3) somewhat difficult to understand. The Article refers to powers of entry. This also, was a matter which we debated in Standing Committee, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain what paragraph (3) means. To paraphrase it, as I understand it, it means that, if someone is described as an authorised person wants to take an ear off a carcase, he must be what is described as a "proper officer" in relation to allowing subsidies to be paid on carcases, or he must be what is described as "any other person authorised". The second seems to cancel out the first. A definite qualification appears first, and then the field is opened much wider.
If an authorised person wants to take away books or records, then anyone can do it so long as he has authority. We made clear in Committee that we had no objection to the delegation covered by Article 4, which deals with marking, but both Article 6 and Article 7 refer to books, to records, and, possibly, to confidential information. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee we expressed our fears that such information as this might go not only to the Commission itself but down to some of the individuals involved as members of one of the Commission's committees, and they


might be people involved also in competition with the person whose affairs were being investigated.
We want an assurance that there will be no departure from the assurances which were given in Committee, that strict instructions would be given that confidential information should be treated with great circumspection.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I give a general welcome to these two Instruments, which bring up to date the calf subsidy payments by increasing the heifer calf subsidy by £1 and the steer calf subsidy by £1 also, which increases were foreshadowed in the White Paper which we received from the Minister the other day.
I welcome the Minister's decision to bring these rates of payment up to a more realistic figure, but I want to know whether he is satisfied with our existing structure, and whether the methods of support for beef are achieving the necessary results. As well as the calf subsidies we have the hill cow and beef cow and fat cattle subsidies. What the nation needs from these producers of cattle was outlined on page 9 of Part II of the National Plan.
The National Plan estimated that the home production of beef and veal might be increased by 125,000 tons by 1970. We must consider these two Orders and the Orders which are about to lapse to see whether the calf subsidies are playing the part in the overall picture which was painted in the National Plan. Many hon. Members on this side of the House regarded that target—an increase of 125,000 tons—as a very modest one. It is calculated that increased consumption alone will account for about 107,000 tons of extra production, so we shall replace only about 18,000 tons of imported meat as the target in the National Plan.
I am convinced that, given the right emphasis and perhaps a little fresh thinking by the Government and a little more thinking about where the emphasis should be placed, we can meet all our home requirements for beef with production from home sources alone long before 1970. I do not want to stray too far in that direction at the moment. I

come back to the two Orders which play a part in the picture which the National Plan painted.
How far is this country along the road towards achieving the target set? My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), whom I am pleased to see here tonight, on 28th February asked the Minister of Agriculture a pertinent Question in relation to the progress made in the past two years towards the estimated target of an extra 125,000 tons. The Minister may look worried about the reply, because he gave it. It showed that in two years since the National Plan was produced the home production of beef and veal had increased only by about 15,000 tons. If these Orders are to play their part in stimulating increased beef production at home in accordance with the National Plan much better progress must be made. The target for five years was an increase of 125,000 tons, but in the first two years the Government have only got to 15,000 tons.
I welcome this scheme, which is part of the overall picture only. But cannot we have some new thinking from the Ministry? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the reply I have just quoted? It was a deplorable confession of Government failure in stimulating beef production. The National Plan target was very modest, yet the Government are falling well behind it. It is no use trotting out these old schemes in an embellished form and hoping that they will do the trick. Fresh thought is needed.
For example, the hon. Gentleman might give careful consideration to whether more emphasis should not be placed on the end product rather than at the beginning of the production line. I beg him to give this matter serious attention and not to be satisfied to continue in the same old depressing way, which is having such disastrous results.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I, too, welcome the scheme. Cattle rearing is essentially a long-term matter. That is why most of us are disappointed that the increase of 15,000 tons is so far behind the National Plan expectations. It is evident that we must have certain incentives, and that is what the scheme provides. We are pleased to


know that it is to be continued for another three years. I am sure that, at this stage, if we did not have a calf scheme as an incentive the numbers would drop very much anyway, especially on hill and upland farms.
In the subsidy rates there is a differential. The heifer calf subsidy is £9 and the steer calf subsidy is £11 5s. I cannot understand why there should be this differential, because it costs as much to winter a cow which rears a heifer calf as it does to winter a cow which rears a steer calf, and in the market we usually get more money for the steer calf because it carries more weight. I want to impress on the Minister the desirability and necessity of bringing the heifer calf figures up to the steer calf figure. This would be a further incentive. I am continually being asked why there is this differential. I attended sales last October and saw 7,000 calves passing through the rings. I could not explain to those who inquired the reason for the differential, but I promised to put it to the Minister at the earliest opportunity. That I now do.
Increasing the numbers depends on the incentives, and we appreciate what is being done, but I hope that the Minister will realise the long term nature of cattle rearing and the continued need for incentives to increase production. The hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and Harborough (Mr. Farr) have made relevant points and I shall not go over the ground again.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: There is no doubt that these calf subsidies do help and encourage beef production, and therefore we welcome this Order. In saying that it will be extended for a number of years the Government have brought a certain amount of confidence to the beef industry, and, my word, that is welcome these days! Having said that, I think that the Minister does not realise that these calves will have to come from the dairy herds, if we want to increase our beef supplies. Every encouragement should be given to dairy farmers to put cows from which they do not expect to get heifer calves for replacement herds—those which are not up to the standard—on to a beef bull, a Hereford, or a Devon—

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Or a Shorthorn.

Mr. Mills: I would not care to say that. I recommend the Devon or the Hereford. I am not certain about the Shorthorn. Unless we do this we shall not get the calves for our beef. I hope that the Minister will give every encouragement to do that. In the South-West we call this "punch money". "Have you got your punch money yet, master?" we are asked.
This is a most important part of the economy of many of the small farms in the South-West. It is right to give the subsidy to the producer or rearer of these calves. Often they are very difficult farms, small hill farms and family farms, and they need this money to give them the encouragement to produce the store cattle that we need. If we put it on the other end, to the fattener, then the rearer tends not to get the advantage of this. It is terribly important to see that this money goes to the rearer. It is only as it trickles through to the rearer will he be encouraged to produce the store cattle for the country and the fatteners. I am certain that this is what the Government want, and it is why they have given this encouragement and brought forward this Order again.
I am a little concerned about paragraph 6(2), which talks of the risk of animal diseases. Perhaps I am a little dumb tonight, after having sat through this long day, but what are these diseases which make it necessary to leave the punching of these cattle till later? It is not scour. Perhaps the Minister could tell us. In paragraph 6(3) there is talk about the farmer collecting the calves and having them in a suitable pen and giving assistance. Surely this is a bit pedantic? I do not know of any farmer who is not prepared to help in this way. If there is "punch money" in it, they are bound to see that they are all together and give every assistance to obtain it.
It seems to labour the point. I do no know of any evidence of farmers not prepared to help in this way. I welcome the fact that the calf sudsidy can be paid on carcases, under Stage B. Some of us have been making representations on this for a long time, and this is very welcome. I believe that it is right to do this. It may be, if we


look into the future, there may be overproduction of milk and farmers may tend to want perhaps to beef some of their heifer replacements instead of using them as dairy replacements. If they are the right sort, and properly fattened, they can get the subsidy.
This is a very big step forward. For perhaps the first time I am congratulating the Minister on these efforts. I must not overdo it, but I think it is fair to give praise where it is due. I welcome this and I am certain that it will help to encourage beef production.

11.0 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I think that Part I is reasonably well understood by the farming community as a whole, but I would ask the Minister whether he really feels that Part II is being used to the extent that it might be. I do not know whether he is able to tell us what amount of money is paid out under Part I and what amount is paid out under Part II. To my mind, those who are rearing beef animals are able to buy in replacements for calves which they lose from the dairy herd and then can qualify for susidy under Part I. But this is only for those who are breeding beef, and who buy replacements for calves they need. What happens to the pure diary herds, and what happens about the large quantities of animals not considered suitable for selling to beef herds for rearing and which at the moment are slaughtered—what I think are known as "bobby" calves, but anyway are slaughtered at a very young age?
I believe that too many animals are going into the markets at too young an age and too many calves are dying from being dragged from one market to another, though they could very well be preserved and reared and could qualify under Part II. I believe there is a very real need to give greater publicity to the facilities which are available under Part II. I believe Part I is very well understood, but there is a very real need of publicity for what can be available under Part II, to see that more animals which at the moment are slaughtered at a very early age are reared to a greater age to contribute to a greater supply of beef in this country. If this were done, and

if the Minister could tell us how much is paid under Part I and under Part II that would be of help in underlining how much extra could be done by more people taking advantage of the facilities available under Part II.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), I welcome the scheme, particularly for the money it puts into the hands of breeders and rearers of beef cattle, particularly in the hill and upland areas, because these breeders and rearers of cattle are not in receipt of subsidies under the Fat Stock Guarantee Scheme for the end-product. This is a great encouragement to both the calf subsidy and the hill beef subsidy. This puts ready money into the hands of those in the areas where, naturally, these animals are bred. For this reason I certainly welcome the scheme and endorse what my hon. Friends have said about it.
However, I should like to raise one specific point which I do not think has been mentioned tonight, and it is this. As the Minister knows, a lot of work has been done, particularly in agricultural research stations in recent years, on the question of rearing bulls for beef. I think it has been shown scientifically that there is not the same prejudice as there was to bull beef. I do not intend to go into the experimental work, which is known to the Minister; he knows the value of the work which has been done on this; but what I would like to do is to express a certain amount of disappointment, because I would have thought that a scheme like this, by which we are starting to pay calf subsidy at the time of slaughter, would have been the opportunity to have introduced payment of subsidy on bulls which are reared for beef, because, as I say, in practice that has been shown to be a perfectly proper and reasonable way of rearing and fattening beef. I would have thought that a Scheme like this would have been an opportunity to introduce something of that sort.
I can appreciate that punching bull calves for the subsidy might be difficult, though I do not altogether understand the difficulty because, once a calf is


punched, it is unlikely to be produced for bull licensing purposes later on. Certainly it ought not to be, and the inspectors could prevent it happening. If there was any difficulty, it could be overcome by introducing Stage B, where the subsidy could be paid on the carcase.
As I say, this might be an opportunity for introducing a subsidy on bulls reared for beef. It would be limited in application, but farmers and others have cooperated in the experimental work. It is a genuine development, done with the best motives, and, in terms of growth rates, it has proved successful. I would like to hear why the Minister has not felt able in this Order to give encouragement to those who are pioneering this work, not only in research but in the fattening of cattle.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Calf Subsidy Scheme. We have had a good and useful debate, but to a large extent it has been let down by the fact that the back benches opposite have been totally denuded during the course of it, except for a brief moment when one hon. Member whose name and constituency are completely unknown to me came in and it for about half a minute as if waiting for a bus, and then went out again. It is a pity, when we are discussing public expenditure of some £28 million, that hon. Members opposite did not see fit to be present.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), I welcome a method of supporting the rearing of beef animals in a way which gives more direct assistance to rearing areas like those which he and I represent.
It is important in beef production to get a greater degree of confidence in the industry. The figures of expenditures and forecasts in respect of calf subsidy schemes over recent years show how low confidence is. Last June, I put down a Written Question referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). At that time, the Ministry was expecting to spend £26·7 million on calf subsidies in the year 1967–68. In the White Paper published last week dealing with the Price Review, we see that the latest estimate for 1967–68 is only £23·1 million. Be

tween last June and now, the Ministry will spend £3·6 million less than it expected then. That shows what a serious loss of confidence there has been in the beef rearing industry.
A great deal has been said about the high level of calf slaughtering last year, and I would like to know to what extent it is still continuing.
In the White Paper, I notice that the estimate for next year is £28·2 million, which is an increase of £5·1 million over the estimate for last year. What justification does the Minister see for this considerable jump? In this context, what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said about how it relates to the National Plan is very relevant, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will refer to that part of my hon. Friend's speech when he replies to the debate.
The Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme extends for a further three years the 1965 Scheme. Can the Minister tell us the expenditure that he expects and the number of calves that he expects to receive the subsidy next year in Scotland, England and Wales respectively?
I want to ask a number of detailed questions on the first scheme. Concerning paragraph 8(a), I make the point that the carcase can be presented under Stage B at a time when the beast is qualifying for the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order. As this scheme is to last for three years, it may be—possibly during that time—that the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order will be superseded, because we are told that the Government are now starting conversations with the farmers' unions with a view to taking up import control. Therefore, it may be that at that time the present system of fatstock guarantees will be superseded, and we shall have a different scheme. Perhaps the Minister will say something about these conversations which we understand are starting.
Concerning paragraph 10, I was extremely puzzled, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), by the phrase,
… approximately equivalent on the average to the rates of subsidy which would have been payable under Part I of this scheme …",
referring to the subsidy paid on a carcase.
This is ambiguously written. When one is talking about the average to the rates of subsidy, there is no reference to the heifer or the steer subsidy. It might be construed by somebody as meaning an average between the two rates. I am sure it does not mean that. I hope that the Minister will take the point that there is an ambiguity in the way that this reads.
Finally on the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1968, I hope that the Minister will refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about bull beef. These experiments have been progressing for four years or so. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I remember applying to join an experimental scheme at that time—this was before I came into the House—for the production of bull beef. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am correct about that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) when he said that he hoped that Stage B would get more publicity. This is very important, because a lot of farmers still do not realise that they can get subsidy at slaughter on certain dairy heifers.
Turning now to the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order, 1968, I am slightly disturbed at the powers which are given in paragraph 6 to persons authorised by the Minister and persons employed by the Commission to whom there is a delegated responsibility under paragraph 8. I am particularly concerned about paragraph 6. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) opened the debate, he referred to people who could go and look at records and books in relation to the calf scheme. Reading paragraph 6 I do not see any reference to the calf scheme. It seems that we are giving these wide powers to people to look at books, accounts and records without any reference specifically to the calf subsidies schemes. I believe that that power could be much wider than we think and much wider than the hon. Gentleman implied.
The final point on the Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order concerns the Schedule where there seem to be these three systems of marking car-

cases to qualify for the Stage B scheme. I do not want to be contentious about England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it would seem better if one could have devised a marking scheme consistent in all the countries in the United Kingdom. With all these different ways of marking and all these different permutations of marking, there is a possibility that some smart alec might think it possible to get the subsidy twice because he thinks a certifying officer may not notice a mark in a certain place because it has been put on in a different country. It is a pity that we cannot have a unified scheme in this way.
I want to turn now to a part of the scheme which worries me. I referred to it when the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate last June. It is the part in paragraph 5 which excludes certain heifers from the Calf Subsidy Scheme. They are the Jersey, Guernsey, Friesian and Ayrshire. The reason is that those might return to the dairy herd and might not be raised for beef. I asked why the dairy Shorthorn was not included in this category. I got the astonishing reply from the Parliamentary Secretary:
The answer is that it is regarded more as a beef animal."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 21st June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1652.]
It is fantastic that the Parliamentary Secretary should regard the dairy Shorthorn as more a beef animal than the Friesian. I do not understand why he says that. I today telephoned the Beef Recording Association which is well-known to everyone in the House. They told me that in their recording for beef production, 75 per cent. of animals are Friesians and only 3·5 per cent. are dairy shorthorns. The average liveweight gain is 2·4 lbs per day for the Friesians and 2 lbs per day for the dairy shorthorn. As for conversion, for every pound of liveweight gain, the Friesian consumes 5·7 lbs and the dairy shorthorn 7·2 lbs. If the figures prove nothing else, they show that the British Friesian is a considerably more important beef breed than the dairy shorthorn. I cannot understand why the Minister should have excluded the dairy Shorthorn and tried to make a case that it is more a beef breed than the others. All the facts and the experience of hon. Members will support my argument.
There have been a number of questions, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have plenty of time to reply, because he did not reply earlier about the Stratford outbreak and the question of swill. I hope he will find time to answer all the questions.

11.18 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I can hardly congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on that speech. His peroration was like his opening remarks. It was not true. I did reply to the point he mentioned, but I will not go into that again tonight. If he was not listening, he cannot blame me for that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the way in which he opened the debate. Hon. Members have raised a number of questions about subsidies and I shall do my best to reply. Calf subsidies are a well tried method of support for the beef industry. That may be a reply to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). While he may not like it quite so much, it will command the respect of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). The extended arrangements for the later payments on carcases have been in operation for more than two years, during which time there has been ample opportunity to consider the views of those concerned in the industry and to iron out the minor administrative problems which invariably arise when new subsidy arrangements are introduced.
Equally, the provisions of the new Supervision and Enforcement Order follow closely those which have operated for many years now for the protection of fatstock guarantee payments and the calf subsidy Stage A. We do not take these precautions because we mistrust the farmers, although some may not behave as they should. I remember when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee that a well known farmer from near the hon. Gentleman's area in Scotland got 110 per cent. of his costs, which did not meet with our approval. This was quite legal, but there was a loophole in the law which had to be closed.
I stand by what I said in Committee about confidentiality. I also asked for an explanation of the words "approximately

equivalent" so that I could answer in simple terms. Stage B subsidy can only be approximately the same as Stage A, although we intend the rates to be generally the same on the average, because the ages of the qualifying cattle presented at Stage B may vary. It means no more or less than that we can ensure equivalence only to this extent.
The important powers to delegate to the Commission under paragraph 2 are permissive, and we intend to delegate only the duty of certification and not that of payment. The person consulting records must be directly authorised by or on behalf of the Minister, and we intend that Ministry officers should do this work. I give the same assurance of confidentiality here, except in cases of prosecution, when we would obviously have to disclose these matters.
The hon. Member for Torrington spoke about "punch money" for ears. Ears must be taken on the spot if malpractice is suspected. This must apply to Commission officers doing the certification and to anyone else authorised by the Minister, such as an inspector on his own staff. The proper officer will normally be an officer of the Commission, who is best placed to notice anything wrong, but if he suspects the need for investigation he will pass the case to the Ministry; our officers will inspect the records and go on from there.
Some thought has been given to whether the system might be altered, since some think that we should dispense with the calf subsidy and add an equivalent sum to the fatstock guarantee, but we think that the subsidy is better in that everyone, from the producer onwards, will get his share. Under the other system, the producer would get less and the man at the other end would get more. These suggestions are very difficult.
Stage B is not used as much as Stage A because any calves suitable for rearing for beef will usually be certified live, since the money is paid then, which is a great attraction. Farmers are aware of the possibility of getting it if it is on the hook. This has not been used a tremendous amount, but it is getting better known. In 1966–67 we spent approximately £24 million on the Stage A scheme and only about £700,000 or three quarters of a million on Stage B. I


agree that it is one of the schemes which might be used to greater advantage.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked about bull beef. We agreed to give a three-year trial to bull beef production. Two years have been completed and we are conducting a review of the progress made. After consultation with the agricultural organisations, we shall announce the action beyond the end of the third year approximately a year from now. If the scheme needs amendment, we shall come to the House again, but I think the hon. Member will agree that it is much better to look at it in that way.

Mr. Peter Mills: I think the hon. Gentleman has rather forgotten the question I asked about disease.

Mr. Hoy: I am trying to share out the answers to questions because there are a considerable number to answer.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) asked why the heifer subsidy is lower than that for steers. He partly answered his question when he spoke of different weights. The aim of the subsidy is to encourage the retention of steers and heifers for beef production, but at the same time to distort as little as possible the way in which the market, through the setting of prices, discriminates between the different types of stock. Heifers normally fetch a lower price per head than steers. Therefore, a subsidy which gave both the same headage rate would favour heifers unduly. Nevertheless, the differential should not be too wide, particularly if we wish to encourage the retention for beef of dairy heifers which are not going to be used for milk production. We consider that the current differential is about right.
I was asked, why cannot Stage B be extended to include animals certified at liveweight centres for fatstock guarantee. Arrangements for claiming calf subsidy on the hook were to enable heifers of dairy breed to qualify for subsidy if they were used for beef production. These animals are excluded from subsidy at Stage A because of the need to ensure against payment of subsidy on heifers which are not slaughtered for beef but are used for dairying. The same problem arises at whatever stage in the animal's

development it may be certified. We have considered many suggestions from representatives of the livestock auctioneers and others, but no practicable way has been found of ensuring against the risk of this happening except by requiring heifers of the dairy breeds to have been slaughtered before they can get the subsidy payment. It is realised that the same problem does not exist in the case of steers, but steers of any breed are eligible for subsidy as calves at Stage A and we would expect that the majority of farmers would continue to present their steers for certification at that stage. We have no evidence that restriction to deadweight causes producers any real difficulty, or has caused any distortion of marketing patterns between liveweight and deadweight.
I have made the case for the Order and I hope that it has the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

The Calf Subsidies (Supervision and Enforcement) Order 1968 [copy laid before the House, 4th March], approved.—[Mr. Hoy.]

WAYS AND MEANS

Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies)

11.30 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move,
That further provision should be made as regards duties of customs under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1957—

(1) so as to enable a provisional charge to duty to be imposed where there may be a case of dumping or subsidisation warranting a duty under the Act, and a duty to be imposed afterwards for the period of the provisional charge if it proves that there is such a case, and to deal with matters arising therefrom or incidental thereto; and
(2) so as to replace section 1(1) proviso of the Act with other provisions relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade there mentioned; and
(3) so as to modify the requirements of the Act as to the price which is to be treated as the fair market price of goods in a country; and
(4) so as to facilitate the temporary suspension or variation of a duty and the revival of a suspended duty.


I hope that the House will be tolerant if I give a few words of explanation, as this matter is of some public importance and it would be as well to spell out what is intended.
In the Queen's Speech, the Government announced their intention to seek powers to take provisional action against dumping in accordance with the code which was agreed in the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations at Geneva. The Resolution is intended to prepare the way for a Bill to amend the present Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, so as to give the Board of Trade powers to take provisional action. Although the object of the Bill is not to raise revenue and it has no major revenue implication, a Ways and Means Resolution is necessary because the Bill, which has the full support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will, in form, impose a charge on the subject. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be ready to answer any policy questions which may be raised within the ambit of the Resolution.
The Kennedy Round anti-dumping code to which I have referred was an agreement reached last year on the implementation of Article 6 of the G.A.T.T., and it deals with measures against dumping or subsidised goods. The code comes into force on 1st July next for each party which has accepted it by that date. Our own practice and procedures are already very much in line with the provisions of the code, but we are now anxious to implement fully all the provisions of the code because we believe that it will be of considerable help to British exporters.
I do not want to enter into all the details of the provisions which we shall be seeking. A comprehensive debate should await the Bill, when it has been printed and has been made available to the House for study. I would, however, like to say a little about the way in which we propose to take provisional action.
At the moment, no extra duty to counteract dumping can be levied by the Customs until the Board of Trade is fully satisfied that dumping is in fact taking place, and the necessary inquiries for the Board of Trade to become so satisfied are bound to take a little time. The

intention in the future is to allow the imposition of a provisional charge where there is a prima facie case of dumping. This charge is fully in line with the antidumping code.
It will be immediately apparent that this method will provide some extra protection for British manufacturers. To spell out the procedure a little, there will, in the first instance, be a preliminary finding by the Board of Trade of dumping or subsidisation and, where appropriate, of material injury being caused or threatened thereby to the relevant British interests. The Board of Trade will then be empowered to make a preliminary order imposing a provisional charge to duty equal to the estimated margin of dumping or subsidisation. In accordance with the provisions of the code, the order would last for three months, although it would sometimes be extended, in ways not contrary to the code, to six months.
The importer of goods under investigation will be able to meet the provisional charge by giving security for that amount, and this will normally be by depositing cash.
Effectively, the importer of the goods would be giving security in cash for any duty that might be found to be justified under the terms of the Bill after the full investigation is completed. No such duty could be levied prior to the date on which the provisional charge commenced, nor could it be higher in amount than the provisional charge. Thus, there would be no real element of retrospection, since the importer would already know of the provisional charge and would indeed have been required to put down security for it. This security would be used to discharge any duty that might be levied and no additional payment would be required. If no duty were levied the deposit would be refunded, or if the duty were less than the provisional charge it would be refunded in part. Existing provisions for relief from antidumping duty, for example, the power to allow drawback, would be applied equally to a provisional charge.
I think that I have summarised the purposes of the Bill that we propose to bring in, and I hope that the House will accept the Motion so that the Bill can be brought in as soon as possible.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: On behalf of my hon. Friends I can say that we approve the principle of the Motion and shall do all that we can to give it a fair wind, although we shall have to look at the terms of the Bill closely when it is before the House.
I thank the Financial Secretary for his careful explanation of the Bill. It is entirely wise to look forward to the provisions of the Kennedy Round and to take this action now. It is none too early. Looking at the trade figures today we see an endorsement of the fact that exporters need all the help that they can be given.
I have picked out three points which I regard as being embraced by the Motion. First, it seems to me that the provisional charge will be a step forward, because so often in the past speedy action has been frightfully important, especially with regard to horticultural imports, or imports of a similar nature.
Secondly, the provisions of subsection (4), concerning temporary suspension or variation of the duty, will provide more flexibility, and I hope that the provisions of the Bill will fulfil the terms of the Motion. It is a sensible provision.
Leaving on one side the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, there is the reference to a fair market price. I have had a little experience of the great difficulties of determining a fair market price in countries of origin, especially in countries which are part of the Communist bloc. I hope that when the Bill is being prepared regard will be had to that factor, because it has been very difficult in calculating the correct levels of dumping and subsidies duties, to ascertain the prices of produce, especially in countries which are part of the Communist bloc, where calculations of price are not arrived at on the same basis as calculations in this country.
We shall look forward very much to the Bill. We expect to be able to give it our support. We want to reserve our position to an extent, but hope very much that the Bill will fulfil the terms of the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That further provision should be made as regards duties of customs under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1957—

(1) so as to enable a provisional charge to be imposed where there may be a case of dumping or subsidisation warranting a duty under the Act, and a duty to be imposed afterwards for the period of the provisional charge if it proves that there is such a case, and to deal with matters arising therefrom or incidental thereto; and
(2) so as to replace section 1(1) proviso of the Act with other provisions relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade there mentioned; and
(3) so as to modify the requirements of the Act as to the price which is to be treated as a fair market price of goods in a country; and
(4) so as to facilitate the temporary suspension or variation of a duty and the revival of a suspended duty.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Ross, Mr. Shore, Mr. Peart, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mrs. Dunwoody.

CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) AMENDMENT

Bill to make further provisions as regards the impostion of duties of customs where goods have been dumped or subsidised, and as regard duties so imposed, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the provision of financial support for certain industrial projects, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Technology under arrangements for providing financial support for the production in the United Kingdom of the supersonic aircraft known as the Concorde, subject to the limitations—

(i) that loans made by the Minister under such arrangements shall be repayable, and guarantees given by him thereunder in


respect of money borrowed shall expire, not later than 30th June 1979; and
(ii) that the aggregate of the following, namely the principal outstanding in respect of loans made by the Minister under such arrangements, the amount for which he is liable under guarantees of the repayment of principal given by him under such arrangements and any sums that have been paid by him pursuant to such guarantees of the repayment of principal and have not been repaid to him, shall at no time exceed £100 million or such greater amount not exceeding £125 million as may be provided by order.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I had not thought to catch your eye at this early stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you and I have seen sad accidents happen in this Chamber by which matters we had wished to discuss fully have not been so discussed, and perhaps by speaking now I shall enable my hon. Friends to explore the present subject at greater length.
I hope that you will guide me if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I believe we have but three-quarters of an hour to discuss this matter, despite the fact that we had unlimited time on the previous Order, which is to be followed by a Bill. I hope that in the limited time available to us we shall hear the Minister of Technology give more than just qualified approval for this great venture, for which we are now asked to approve the money involved. We have on previous occasions with some difficulty dragged statements from the right hon. Gentleman, and there have been some bitter exchanges across the Floor in the time that has been available. I have no wish at all to detain the House, but I hope that the Minister will be most forthcoming this evening.
I do not see in his place the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who has constantly sniped at this great national project; perhaps he has abandoned his campaign against it. I see present the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) who is, I know, a committed admirer of the project and will do everything he can to support it. I am glad to have his indication of agreement. My hon. Friends are most anxious that the project should succeed.
Since this is a money matter, the question of who shall provide the cash is

bound to arise. We are asked to authorise the payment of substantial sums from the Exchequer, and the question of what other funds will be provided to accompany those Exchequer funds will no doubt be raised later. Had I been fortunate enough to have caught your eye somewhat later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might have been able to tangle with some of my hon. Friends on this matter.
Politics are very largely concerned with this project. This is a national—virtually a nationalised—undertaking, so we must not be too censorious in our view of the private undertakings which will be asked to put their money into it also. If the Government interfere in a commercial venture they must be expected to take a substantial risk. It is the nation which is taking the risk, and it is the nation which should be wholeheartedly behind this project, as I am, and as are those in my constituency who are working to make it a success.
I know that I speak for a large number of my hon. Friends in wishing the Concorde well. It was not without risk that the brothers Cabot sailed from Bristol to discover the New World. It was not without risk and tribulation that the great Brunel—so much concerned with Bristol, where the Concorde is being built—constructed great works of engineering which succeeded in the end, and which led the way to other successes.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not now be reticent in his support of this great project, and that on this occasion he really believes that we are on to a winner. I certainly believe that we are, and I hope that the Government will do everything they can to support the project.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I welcome this announcement. It concerns not only the many people in my constituency who work in the industry. It affects a large number of people all over the country. It has been variously estimated that about 250,000 people are engaged directly or indirectly with the aircraft industry and in making accessories and so forth. I have always believed that our aircraft industry has a great future and there is no doubt that the Concorde project marks an interesting technological approach at a very high level in which


we can justifiably say that we lead the world.
The future of those engaged in the industry has been played about with by those who call themselves responsible commentators. Newspapers have run articles week by week varying from eulogistic praise to the depth of despair. Workers in Bristol have been needlessly concerned about their future because of rumours of impending cancellation which have been a weekly feature. Throughout the long discussions we have had arising from spurious talk in the Press and when the workers have come to see us, my hon. Friend has always made it clear that, when the project was advanced, the money would be made available. I am pleased that this pledge has been redeemed tonight.
Private enterprise has been equally keen to say that it believes in the future of the Concorde, but it is a sad commentary on private enterprise's confidence in the project that all it can find for it is up to £25 million. The private enterprise stake in this venture can only be up to one-fifth. That needs emphasising.
One of the criteria of private enterprise has always been, "We put up the money and take the risk, and if it pays off we make the profit also." We are in the strange situation where private enterprise is willing to put up only one-fifth of the money, although the project is still expected to justify this private enterprise. Where such huge sums of public money are concerned, we should follow the logic of the situation, and the aviation industry should be owned by the country as a whole. We are co-operating with the French in this project and no one has ever doubted that the French companies, which are owned by the State, have proved that they can do an efficient job.
Another matter which should not go unremarked is the statement on 26th February by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on equality of information as regards these huge sums. It is fair to say that the Conservatives have always said that they should always be the Government because they are business men who know all about business and how to run the country's affairs. There have been a number of scandals in the aircraft in-

dustry. The Ferranti case immediately comes to mind. I do not want to prejudice any inquiry that is taking place now, but we know what is involved. Under the previous Administration vast sums of public money were made available to companies, but we were never allowed to see the books. I commend the Government for tackling the problem as vigorously as they have done. The important statement of 26th February lays down, for the first time, criteria which give me much greater confidence than I had in the spending of vast sums of public money.
This evening marks an important step forward in the future of the aircraft industry. It is important to many of my constituents who earn their livelihood in the industry. I have always said that it is necessary to ensure that the industry produces aircraft efficiently, cheaply and on time. We are making sure that the industry does this.
The Government are making fair progress in clearing up the mess left behind by the previous Administration. I think that that comment is justified when one studies the record. I commend this Money Resolution to the House, because I believe that those who have denigrated the project, and those who have written irresponsible articles in the Press, have been confounded. I believe that we can now go forward with this great enterprise. I know that there is a risk, but it is justified because of the importance of this venture to the economic life of this country.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), have many constituents who are intimately concerned with the Concorde venture. It is therefore of special interest to them, and I think we understand that, but it is also a matter of substantial interest to every hon. Member who has constituents whose major rôle in this enterprise will be to help sign the cheques.
On that basis, even at this late hour, the House is entitled to ask one or two questions which arise on this Money Resolution, because it talks about loans. Why is the House being asked to sanction loans of this magnitude? Why, if


this is a project of such proven commercial value, is there not a scramble on the part of the City, on the part of free enterprise, private institutions and the banks, to participate in it?
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West referred to the denigration of this project in some publications. I hope he will excuse me from quoting any of those. I shall confine my quotation to a publication sent to me by the B.A.C. It was a reproduction of an article from Flight, and above the initials N.F.G.H., the article concluded:
To set up production for three aircraft a month will require a net investment reaching a peak of £100 million during the early 1970s. The difficult question is where shall the money come from, and who will bear the risk—the Government or the firms?
There is a depressing indication that those who are professional risk-bearers shrink from this project, notwithstanding all the eulogies that come from B.A.C. about Concorde, notwithstanding all the eulogies from hon. Members such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. West, and, in this instance, his colleague from Bristol, North-West. I am intrigued that Mr. Neil Harrison, the editor of Flight, in the same publication, which was sent to me by B.A.C. concluded:
Without any doubt the Concorde has money-making potential in a wide range of circumstances.
It is ironic that a little earlier he should have written:
In planning this review Flight asked Air France, B.O.A.C. and Pan American if each would express opinions on the economic prospects for the aircraft. All three accepted the invitation, but each subsequently withdrew, on the grounds that insufficient facts were known.
This seems to raise a highly intriguing situation, when we are asked, at this hour of the evening, to sanction a loan of £100 million to £125 million on behalf of our constituents. We must ask ourselves if the Government have been assured on this. Can they speak with the confidence of Mr. Neil Harrison when he said that
Without any doubt the Concorde has money-making potential in a wide range of circumstances.
At what rate is this loan to be levied? We knew from the Minister of Technology that it would be at the going rate. He was pressed on this a number of

times when he made his statement on 27th February. He said then:
The rate of interest will be the normal Government rate for this type of lending."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1234.]
We do not have very clear, unequivocal guidance from a communication of that nature. What we are perfectly entitled to ask for is an assurance that there will not be a concealed subsidy in the rate of interest, or alternatively that a deal will not be made with B.A.C. which is any more favourable than that which the Tory Government made with Cunard, when with a prevailing Bank Rate of 4 per cent. they negotiated a deal one half point above Bank Rate. Could we have an indication of that sort, as to whether this is the kind of financing that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking about?
Lastly, we might ask why in paragraph (ii) of the Money Resolution we have the slight ambivalence of £100 million:
… or such greater amount not exceeding £125 million …
I fancy there may have been a certain amount of give and take in the arithmetic. Of course, we could conclude that in this highly sophisticated industry this was a project which was initially supposed to cost £150 million, and therefore was too expensive for this country to take on single-handed, so it took a 50 per cent. share, which came to £75 million.
The history ever since has been one of escalating cost. The House often performs different functions, and tonight it is acting as a laboratory, in which one further test is being conducted upon what has become a technological Frankenstein which has grown and escalated in cost on such a scale that no one is prepared to take the frightening decision of saying that it has been a misjudgment. We flinch and we come back from this initial decision, because in our hearts we do not believe that this is a commercial enterprise. This must be the fear that strikes every tolerably objective commentator who has watched the proceedings of the Concorde. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assuage this scepticism which I hope I have presented in a fair fashion. No one in this House, no matter on which side he sits, wants to see this project fail. Our constituents have too much at stake.

12 m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: There seems, as usual, to be some sort of Parkinson's Law in operation, whereby the greater the amount of the expenditure the House is being asked to sanction, the less time there is available to discuss it. I am bound to say that I regard it as wholly deplorable that such a derisory amount of time is available for this very important matter this evening.
In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend gave the assurance to the House that
there will be an opportunity for the separate Money Resolution to be debated before the Clause is discussed in Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1590.]
I understand that there are only 10 more minutes now available for back benchers to speak in this debate, and I think it is wholly disgraceful, and no way in which to gain the confidence of hon. Members in the validity of what the Government are proposing tonight. None of us wants to seem unwilling to advance the money for this specific British venture of the Concorde, whose merits I do not now propose to discuss, even if there were time for us to do that, but I regard the procedure whereby this particular matter has been tacked on to an Industrial Expansion Bill as an extremely grave reflection of the way in which this House is being treated. It seems to me we have had, as it were, a cuckoo's egg deposited in a nest never devised for it.
We are being asked to authorise an expenditure of £125 million, an expenditure of which the full details have yet to be put before the Committee where it has not yet been discussed, and an expenditure virtually as much as the total amount of the expenditure under the main Bill. We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the principle of this industrial financing. When the main Bill came before the House we expected to have the Money Resolution. In some instances, perhaps, fresh Money Resolutions have to be brought to the House, but I think the procedure in this case is wholly wrong.
In the Second Reading debate we had from my right hon. Friend a statement which was as informative as such statements can be, but nevertheless limited, as they must always be because of the time available to the House on such

occasions, and in the course of answers to questions legitimately put to him by hon. Members on both sides my right hon. Friend was at pains to point out that there would be opportunity later on in Committee to discuss many of these vital detailed implications of what was being proposed. At one stage, for example, he said that the indemnity proposals would be fully explored during the Committee stage. He went on to discuss many other aspects of what would be clarified. Later he said there would be ample opportunity to discuss the terms and conditions under which the money would be available. The Committee will have this opportunity, but the House will already have been asked to authorise a loan of very considerable magnitude indeed, many of whose details are simply not known and cannot be because of the form of debate the House is now having.
I should like to know how it will be possible to reconcile the terms, or to alter the terms of levying these loans, in relation to those which the French will levy, and how is this procedure to be squared with the principle of equality of cost sharing built into the Concorde treaty. There seem to be complex ambiguities in all this, and one would like to know a great deal more about the indemnification which will be introduced, and what arrangements will be made for loans to be repayable before the end of the 1970s. What happens if they are not repaid? We need clarification of these things.
It is intolerable that there are so many important questions which it seems the House of Commons is not allowed to put at this stage before this Money Resolution is voted upon. I am bound to say that I regard it as most unfortunate, and something which will colour the whole of my future attitude to this venture.

12.5 a.m

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I echo much of what the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) said. This is an unsatisfactory debate and it is not the first unsatisfactory debate we have had on this subject.
In the short while available to me, I will ask only four of the important questions which need answering. First, why does an extra £25 million appear in this Resolution? The implication in the Minister's statement of 27th February was


that only £100 million would be needed. Secondly, what interest rates will apply? We do not have the faintest idea of what the Minister considers would be adequate or whether our rates will be the same as those which the French will be charging. Thirdly, can we have more information about the £30 million for special tools? Is this sum covered by the Resolution? How special are these tools and what other use will there be for them?
Fourthly, what is the real explanation for the slippage? The Minister has been coy about this and many of us think that the real slippage has been political. The French were induced, because of the vacillation of Her Majesty's Government, to set an unrealistic flight date for the 001—I have some information about this which I will give to the Minister later—and, as a result of this, an appearance of slippage has been built into the Concorde project. I trust that the Minister will confirm that there is no slippage connected with the 002.
Many of my constituents work at Weybridge, where much of the airframe work will be done. Like them, I want the project to succeed, not only for their benefit but because it will be of great benefit to the economy. I therefore regret the party nonsense which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) introduced, particularly in view of the enormous potential of this project, which could earn us £1,500 million if it is successful.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I regret what the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) because there was a great deal of truth in my hon. Friend's comments. We are talking about very great sums of money and we should be taking far greater care than we are able to take in this debate.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that we were spending this money not without risk and that it was not without risk that Cabot went to Newfoundland from Bristol. Be that as it may, it is without risk that the Bristol Siddeley Company will be getting this money. The Industrial Expansion Bill is designed to give

the Minister greater powers of control. I hope that he will take and use them. I understand that a proposed new Clause to that Measure would give my right hon. Friend power to take over shares. I hope he will do that and that the enabling powers in that Bill will be even further extended.
Why, of all the vaches sacrées, did the Concorde "get away", to put it that way? Was the reason that the cancellation charges would have been too great, so that we are prepared to spend this sort of money over a period of time rather than pay the cancellation debt which would be due to the French? Nevertheless, I join hon. Members who have said that, whatever the circumstances, we should have been prepared to go through with this project. There is tremendous economic potential involved in it, not least from the spin-off of research. The Government—indeed, the country—are committed to this project, and I hope that it will succeed.
As for the slippage argument of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), if there was any political slippage, it occurred when the British signature went on the original contract—and that occurred under a Tory Administration.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I was impressed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). This is no time to discuss a matter of this importance with this restricted period for debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in this matter, though I must confess that I agree with precious little else that he said.
This is a project which involves a very substantial advance on previous air transport techniques and, in many respects, involves a break-through in existing knowledge of the art. In those circumstances, there is bound to be a very substantial element of risk. None of us is a. prophet and none of us can foresee beyond what has taken place in the past.
On the coming into office of this Government, the aviation industry was told that the Concorde was a prestige project to which they were looking for further economies. I believe in prestige. I want to see something built of which


this country can be proud, and I hope that that is how the right hon. Gentleman regards Concorde.
Shortly after that, we had the cancellation of the TSR 2, which was already flying. Then came the cancellation of the HS 681, and that was a project to which we all looked as a means of providing both domestic and short-range aviation to the Continent which would cut down the enormous demands that aerodromes make on land in this country. Then the P 1154 was cancelled as well. Is it surprising that it is not possible to raise money in the City? This sort of atmosphere having been produced in aviation, do hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that private capital can be raised?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support to this project. Although the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) might lead one to believe the contrary, this aircraft is being built in my constituency, and a larger proportion of the men who work on it live in my constituency than in any other. I welcome it also because there is a big chance of it not only being a remarkable technological project but a commercial one as well. It is becoming more evident daily that the American SST will fall more and more behind, which gives a tremendous advantage to the Concorde, provided that we press forward with it and do not lose our courage. I welcome the evidence that the right hon. Gentleman shares that view and is determined to press on with it. I hope that that is the spirit in which this Money Resolution is produced.
It is a matter which has nothing to do with the nationalisation of the industry. It is obvious that the actions of the Government have made it almost impossible to raise private money on the project. As for the comments of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West about Ferranti and Bristol Siddeley, I would remind him that the matter arose because of the Report of the Lang Committee, which was set up by a Conservative Government.
I wish to underline particularly the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about slippage. My information is that the initial flight delay is due to the type

of defects which one inevitably finds at this stage of development of an advanced aircraft. I hope that the Minister will tell us if something more serious has occurred. I hope also that he will explain to us why we have selected the rounded figures of £100 million and £125 million, and on what estimates they are based.
I repeat that I welcome the Government's support for the project. I want to see it succeed, perhaps above all else, and, quite apart from its substantial commercial prospects, the country as a whole wants something of which they can be proud. Concorde could well be it.

12.15 a.m.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): So many hon. Members are claiming that their constituents make Concorde that I had better enter my own case. As the Member for Bristol, South-East, I see it from both ends. My constituents come to see me about it and I see the companies in my official capacity.
I shall do my best to answer the points raised and to take them as quickly as I can. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked me to be more forthcoming. Tonight I have been forthcoming to the extent of £100 million and if the House authorises it, to the extent of £125 million. One cannot be more forthcoming that that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been taunting me and time after time I have said that production finance would be available. Yet there has not been one word about that. Instead, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has talked about slippage and suggested that we are responsible for slippage from the French assembled 001. The hon. Member for Woking has continually been sniping at this project. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] He has suggested it time and again, at Question-time.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: No, I cannot give way. If the hon. Member wants to hear the answers he had better listen to me. Time and again at Question Time he has suggested that the British Government are in some way not supporting the Concorde project and that constituted a continual action designed to shake the confidence


of the world's airlines in the likelihood of Concorde coming forward. I think he was trying to make political points and shaking confidence in the likelihood of its flying. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That is my interpretation of it.
I now come to the question—[Interruption.] I am answering the questions put to me. The hon. Member said I had not been forthcoming. I have said, whenever I have been asked about the project, that it was on time, and that I would provide the production finance. When, tonight, I bring forward the Money Resolution, the hon. Member asks me to be more forthcoming. I have been, to the extent of the Money Resolution.
It is infuriating to hon. Members opposite to find that their warnings and sniping have turned out to be wrong. Hon. Members have referred to the extent of the commitment and risk that the nation is taking on. Of course it is. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who wound up for the Opposition, knows that where one has a project as big as this, with the technical difficulties inevitably associated with advanced technology, there is bound to be an element of risk. I have always made clear that one cannot, with a project of this kind, ever be absolutely certain and that is one reason why the Government have undertaken the responsibility for financing. There are all sorts of responsibility which may be affected by the complexities of production and the uncertainties of marketing which are connected with things over which the Government have no control which make this an uncertain project, and that is why the Government have to assume special responsibility for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) said that some of the Press comment on the Concorde had not been helpful. There was a recent broadcast by the B.B.C., which was supposed to be funny but which was disgraceful and outrageous. It drew a comparison with the R 101, which other hon. Members as well as I will remember crashed in 1930 or 1931. We have not been helped by such comment.
This is a case where, if this country wishes to remain in advanced technology, it has to be prepared to support the engineers engaged in the production of this aircraft. Of course, in one sense, it

is not private enterprise at all. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, the nation is taking the risk. This is not private enterprise but a national enterprise. We shall have, not only under the arrangements which the Chief Secretary negotiated but particularly in this case, full equality of information. I shall see that the books are open to us, because Government money is involved.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) criticised the project, and much of his criticism was directed at his colleagues who signed the "unbreakable treaty" on Concorde. He asked, why Government loans? Because of the element of risk. Anyone who believes that advanced technology, whether the American space programme or anything else, can be entirely privately financed, needs to look at the realities again.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about interest rates. I have answered this before, but I will do so again. The answer is the going rate, which means that, in negotiations between the company and the banks, which are normally commercial negotiations, it would usually be Bank Rate plus a half per cent., but I cannot say what Bank Rate will be at the time that the loan is negotiated. Exchequer loans will be at the normal minimum rate under the National Loans Fund.
My. hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) complained about the way that this has been handled, but he might have been more generous, because we have this statutory power without a special Bill under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, under which I have already been financing production. Because it was so important, we wrote a special Clause into the Bill.
What are the opportunities for debate? First, there is this short debate on the Money Resolution; next the Committee stage; then Report stage; and then Third Reading on the whole Bill, although that might be a rather large instrument to use, and the fact that all the money will be provided by means of annual Votes by Parliament. The suggestion that this has been slipped in in some way is a misreading of the careful procedures involved.
The hon. Member for Woking asked why £100 million to £125 million. This


is a common procedure, to come to the House and say that we believe that this is what will be necessary and to provide that, if it is, the Government will have to ask for an Order extending it. This safeguards Parliamentary procedures. Instead of saying £125 million immediately, we give the House a chance to consider the matter half way through. The £30 million for equipment is provided for under the 1949 Act.
The hon. Member for Woking also implied that it was the British Government who had insisted on this date being maintained which has led to the slippage. This is an alarming slippage, and could lead to a six months' delay—

Mr. Onslow: I was talking about certification.

Mr. Benn: I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was talking about slippage in the first flight. Certification will be done as soon as possible. Naturally we hope that there will not be any consequential delay parallel with the delay in the first flight. The Boeing has been delayed by 12 months, so Concorde's lead has been increased over the last few months.
It might be helpful if I sum up these financial commitments. On the latest figures agreed with the French, the cost of research and development will amount to £250 million. On this we shall get back a levy on sales. The intra-mural amount of £30 million is covered on the Votes. The Government loans and guarantees are what I have brought forward, and then there is the plant bought and rented, which will be loaned at normal commercial rates.
The only remaining commercial possibility is the contingent liability of a total disaster at some late stage in the programme, which might give rise to a £200 million commitment, but this is on the assumption that everything went wrong when a lot of aircraft had been produced

and there was a disaster, but this would be handled in a different way.
I think the Government have brought all these facts before the House as fully as could reasonably be expected. I hope that the House will approve the Money Resolution and permit a debate on the Committee stage in which we shall have an opportunity of considering the project in greater detail.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ellis: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who shouted "No" to this vote, should put in Tellers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It is a matter of choice whether any hon. Member who calls "No" puts in Tellers or not.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the provision of financial support for certain industrial projects, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Technology under arrangements for providing financial support for the production in the United Kingdom of the supersonic aircraft known as the Concorde, subject to the limitations—

(i) that loans made by the Minister under such arrangements shall be repayable, and guarantees given by him thereunder in respect of money borrowed shall expire, not later than 30th June 1979; and
(ii) that the aggregate of the following, namely the principal outstanding in respect of loans made by the Minister under such arrangements, the amount for which he is liable under guarantees of the repayment of principal given by him under such arrange. ments and any sums that have been paid by him pursuant to such guarantees of the repayment of principal and have not been repaid to him, shall at no time exceed £100 million or such greater amount not exceeding £125 million as may be provided by order.

DEVALUATION (COMMODITY MARKETS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

12.28 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I want to put before the House the effect of the devaluation of the British pound on the future of our commodity markets, particularly those in London and Liverpool, and the need to do more for them if invisible exports—worth in 1965 £40 million—are not to be jeopardised.
Traders in commodities coming from Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, none of which devalued when we did, have been badly hit because they had to buy in the local currency and sell in sterling. From October, 1963, when the Nigerian Produce Marketing Company was moved from London to Lagos, that company refused to sell cotton, ground nuts, palm oil kernels, cocoa, or any of their other produce except in Nigerian pounds. It is as well to realise how important the so-called invisible export earnings are from brokerage and commodity trading. The figures on page 107 of the Report of the Committee on Invisible Exports show that in 1965 £4·3 million was earned by the market in copper, tin, lead and zinc. Figures for that year appear to have been less for other commodities, though the Committee admits that the returns are voluntary and incomplete.
The Liverpool Cotton Association claims £4 million over and above the £40 million earnings mentioned by Mr. Cyril Kleinwort, then deputy chairman and now chairman of the Committee, in his letter to The Times of 15th December last, as a contribution to this country's earnings in 1965—an important contribution, the Financial Secretary will agree, having regard to today's trade balance. The Liverpool cotton market does this—the same applies to other commodity associations—at virtually no charge on national resources other than the knowledge and experience of a handful of professional traders.
Moreover, there is room for increase, since only 15 per cent. of the £700 million world cotton trade passes now directly

or indirectly, through Liverpool. It must be remembered also that such trade benefits all the ancillary services, usually British, of banking, insurance and shipping. Any major set-back for the status of the London and Liverpool international commodity trading centres must lead to a loss of business which would be far greater than any support now needed.
But the threat of such a loss is now with them. It is not as though some had not tried to protect themselves against disaster. Here, I quote from a letter written as long ago as 3rd August 1966 from the Liverpool Cotton Association to the Bank of England:
A Member points out that there are certain circumstances where it is impossible for him to obtain cover. He goes on to say that, as an international raw cotton merchant, his business is to trade in cotton and it is his duty to avoid taking any risks or positions in foreign exchange
as he would over fire or burglary—
but that there are two specific instances where an international merchant can become wide open to very serious losses.
The first instance"—
I shall deal with only one—
is where a merchant is buying cotton for forward delivery in a 'sterling area' country and selling it for forward delivery to various destinations. The normal practice when making a sale in a currency other than sterling is to sell that currency forward. However, if the United Kingdom were to devalue and the country in the 'sterling area' failed to follow"—
which is exactly what happened—
a merchant would be wide open to a serious loss because it is impossible to buy forward Nigerian pounds, East African shillings, etc. The Member suggests that the Bank of England should allow a merchant to cover forward commitments by buying forward dollars which could then be sold when the cotton is paid for.
There came a reply on 1st September, 1966, nearly 15 months before actual devaluation:
The Bank of England regret that they are unable to offer any concession which would met the request made by a member of your Association.
In other and oral discussions, cover was requested repeatedy over four years by other commodity traders, since there was no forward market in the local currencies. Did the Bank and the Government at that time prefer that no trade should have been done with these members of the sterling area? It would have been


an odd advertisement for them and for Commonwealth.
I am told that the commercial banks said that there was no likelihood of the pound going and not the Nigerian pound as well. Presumably, they must have discussed this with the Bank of England. Too many people, I suspect, were thinking of 1948, not 1967. But I am informed that some traders have been told that they should have inserted a devaluation clause in every contract. How pleased the Socialist Government would have been at that time at such an advertisement for a possible devaluation of the pound, months before it actually happened. Nigeria, anyhow, would not have accepted it; nor would the buyers. Had traders tried to insist on it, all that would have been achieved would have been a massive switch to traders outside Britain, who would have dispensed with a devaluation clause because they would have been allowed to hedge in dollars.
Some action has been taken by the Bank of England. A five year loan, subject to six-monthly repayments, was offered up to 80 per cent. of a trader's substantiated loss. No doubt, such was done because the loss was limited and would not open the door to a host of other claimants. It has, I believe, never been offered before. Has the Bank, perhaps, a conscience? But in effect no foreigner dealing with a British firm knows whether the Bank of England will not foreclose at any of the six-monthly repayment dates, although the Bank has offered a sympathetic interview to any firm that finds its difficulties continuing.
I understand that the documental claims amount to £4·3 million and the loans, therefore, to £3·5 million, even though the offer was unrestricted. Those entitled to it are a very limited number. Since all these losses would offset Corporation and Income Tax, is there not a strong argument either to make the loans a gift or extend them to 15 years, with no interest? Then all the firms concerned would be viable, and no foreigner need fear their bankruptcy.
Australia has already met virtually the full losses of the Wheat Board; Pakistan has gone a long way towards recompensing her traders. Nigeria, as well as making helpful suggestions for temporary

aid to our traders while the British Government made up their minds, has offered help to their own exporters who sold in our pounds. Even the Sudan has offered its people long-term loans at about 2 per cent.
It must also be remembered that most of the firms concerned had to pay more for their old sterling contracts in order to get the raw materials for the mills, or to fulfil obligations to buyers overseas. One must remember, too, that we take brokerage or profit on a lot of commodities that never see these shores and, as well as the common ones that I have already mentioned, they vary from illipe nuts from Borneo to sod oil from Australia. But I make no claim for extra losses incurred for such contracts. These were real business risks.
But is it not essential to look to the future? Firms still cannot protect themselves when trading in Nigerian pounds or East African shillings. Though Nigeria, I am told, will now sell in pounds, they give a preference to those who buy in Nigerian pounds, as they have lost faith in sterling. The world used to trade in our pounds, but once commodities start being dealt with in other currencies London and Liverpool may no longer get their export earnings. It may be said that the Nigerian pound may soon be devalued, but I am told that last Friday, before the meeting in Basle, it was difficult to obtain forward exchange cover for pounds into any other international convertible currency.
Surely the Financial Secretary will agree that it is time to establish a forward market in certain sterling area currencies. The Treasury may say that this is a job for private enterprise, but how can this be done when most other central banks concerned would oppose it because of the likely heavy discount on their currencies and fears of abuse by their nationals? Without their co-operation, such a market would be very difficult and, in any case, the trades are so seasonal that an open position would have for many months to be held far too large for any other than a quasi-governmental body.
People now are not prepared to take further risks. Is it not possible for such to be covered on lines similar to E.C.G.D. on specified transactions and on a profit-making basis? Such an artificial market


could be available only to British registered firms and companies. I understand that there is such cover in East Africa, but only for their nationals.
It must be remembered that this lucrative trade, and the experts now employed in it here, could easily move to Europe, and Britain would suffer. Already trade has been lost. Nigeria has sold 350,000 tons of ground nuts directly to Europe: two-thirds should have come through London. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to receive another deputation, this time led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod). I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will ponder the possibilities in the meantime.

12.41 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am sure that we will all wish to commend the force and cogency with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has put forward the case of these commodity traders, but I fear that I must trouble the House with a little background comment before coming to the specific situation.
Trade with the outer world falls broadly into two parts—the overseas sterling area and foreign currencies. There is an active forward market in foreign currencies, but not an active forward market in sterling area currencies. This was certainly the position at the relevant time before devaluation. It followed that anyone trading in the sterling area in currencies other than the £ sterling was liable to suffer loss if their obligations in other sterling currencies increased in terms of sterling by reason of a devaluation of sterling not followed by a corresponding devaluation in the currency of the other sterling area country. This was a commercial risk that all the persons concerned in the trade knew perfectly and, as the hon. Gentleman has shown, were anxious to avoid.
The Bank of England made it perfectly clear, before any traders committed themselves in this way, that it was not prepared to undertake in the forward market the risk which was involved in such trade. It follows that, whether traders of the kind we have heard of this

evening or any other traders engaged in contracts with other sterling areas currencies, they were aware of the risk of loss—and the possibility of gain in the event of the devaluation of those currencies not followed by sterling—and took the risk upon themselves. Nobody can say that they were misled; nobody can say that they were unaware of the risk. I confess that it is rather sad that this sort of hazard arises from the unsettled state of international monetary affairs and, in particular, our own sterling currency during 1967.
I have the greatest admiration for the skill, and integrity and the world-wide reputation of the commodity traders. No one in the House values more than I do the part they play in our commerce and the contribution they make to our invisible exports. Indeed, I can recall that, in my youth in the North of England, I had personal dealings with them, not altogether of a meritorious character, but on some of which I gained and on some of which I lost. Such experiences as I had taught me that they were an alert group of businessmen of the highest integrity and experience. Whatever traders were involved in the risk of devaluation of the pound sterling not followed by devaluation of the other sterling area currency, and whoever was not aware of and alert to the risks, I am sure that the commodity traders would not fall into that ignorant category. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that they did.
Although we deeply regret the losses they have suffered, it becomes clear that we have now to examine the situation which arises for the Government on devaluation. I can record that no one regretted more than I the devaluation of sterling which was forced upon us. The consequences for everybody trading abroad were either arbitrary gains, in some cases, or arbitrary losses.
It would be an impossible burden for the Government to take on the arbitrary losses of all traders in some form, whether by way of long-term loans without interest or by outright gifts, which the hon. Gentleman suggests. I cannot see, with the deepest sympathy for the group of people whose cause he has so ably pleaded, why they should be singled out from all those who suffered losses by


reason of devaluation for Government responsibility for their losses.

Mr. Tilney: But are they not in a slightly different category? We know they are limited. The total in losses is only £4·3 million, or actually £3·5 million. They are in a different category because they could not get their insurance.

Mr. Lever: Unhappily I am in receipt of many claims for many losses and if smallness of the size of a claim is a reinforcement of it, then £4½million is a great sum compared with the relatively modest sums which, reluctantly, I have to refuse to pay out to people who have suffered losses through no fault of their own because of devaluation. Far from this being a small sum as the hon. Gentleman suggests, there are innumerable sums much smaller which have been lost by people in perhaps an even weaker position than the traders the hon. Gentleman is representing tonight.
I hope that he will not mistake me. In saying this, I do not withdraw one word of sympathy which I feel for the difficulties and losses these trades have suffered. Nor do I withdraw one word of appreciation for the value of their services and the great assistance they are in our invisible trade. But I must point out that it would be totally impossible financially for the Government to take in general the losses which have been sustained by devaluation, more particularly as we have no means of taking in the profits which arbitrarily and in large sums have been made by others. I have all the sympathy in the world for the grounds of distinction in the hon. Gentleman's argument for this claim as well as for the thousands of other claims made by people who have had arbitrary losses through no fault of their own and for the same reasons.
The Bank of England has shown the Government's recognition of the special role of these traders in our invisible exports and balance of payments efforts by recognising the cash difficulty with which they were faced. It has made available £5 million to these firms. The hon. Gentleman says that most of it will be taken up.
This loan is on exceedingly favourable terms of interest. It is unsecured and it

is subordinated to all other claims upon these firms. I would think that the sympathetic response promised by the Bank of England at half-yearly intervals is no reason for alarm among traders who need the money when they come up before the Bank for renewal. I am bound to say that the Government cannot take responsibility, even in the future, for these exchange risks.
In most cases Nigeria is prepared to accept sterling contracts, but I understand from what the hon. Gentleman says that this is not invariable and it is a pity. I can see that real difficulties may arise because of this, but unless the trade can negotiate his contract in sterling, there may be a currency risk.
We understand that forward facilities are available in the East African territories, but these are essentially a matter for the commercial interests themselves. The Government and the Bank of England will give every facility that they can to help create this forward market, or to assist, or advise, or to give any permissions that are necessary for its furtherance.

Mr. Tilney: I understand that the forward facilities in East Africa are limited to East African nationals.

Mr. Lever: That is not my information. I understand that the market is not very mature, but will develop, as one would expect it to. If traders engaged in this trade want to hedge their currency risks, they have to organise the possibility of a forward market. We cannot take the financial responsibility for that forward market, but we will give every facility to the traders, every advice, help and permit that is required from the Bank of England, to further the extension and development of that market. This will obviously be of some assistance to traders. What we cannot do is to open up a new area of forward market responsibility in the sterling area, in which the Bank of England or the Government take responsibility. I know that this is hard on the traders concerned, but this is one of the risks that inevitably follows from the somewhat uncertain state which international monetary affairs has reached. It is one of those pricks against which it is of little use to kick at the moment.
It is suggested that we can get E.C.G.D. to give a guarantee.

Mr. Tilney: No.

Mr. Lever: It is the equivalent of a currency guarantee that is requested. Unhappily, this is divorced from the normal function of the E.C.G.D. It is not the appropriate organisation to arrange and organise currency guarantees. Its whole organisation is for other purposes, and it cannot be brought in to help.
If there are any further facilities which the Bank of England or the Government can give which might help traders in this difficulty, we shall be glad to consider them, but I have to give the hon. Gentleman a dusty answer when it comes to extending the forward commitments which we have to undertake in the overseas markets. We have to hope that traders will sort this out, as they have always done, with shrewdness and judgment, so that they minimise their risks and undertake trading with their usual skill and ingenuity, despite the added difficulties which international monetary uncertainty has created.
I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned that it was proposed that there should be a

deputation led by the right. hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have not heard of this. I can only say that the presence of the right hon. Gentleman will always be welcome at the Treasury. I can usually rely on him for an apt biblical quotation in support of whatever argument he pursues. We do not know of these arrangements, but I am sure that any application to the Treasury for further discussion and consideration will be sympathetically received by the Chancellor.
I am grateful for the moderation with which the hon. Gentleman put his case. I repeat the Government's very real and genuine sympathy for these traders, and my own sympathy which follows, particularly because of the views that I had about the maintenance of parity, but in all the circumstances I have nothing very tangible to offer the hon. Gentleman on the argument that he has put before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

[MISS HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Miss Harvie Anderson (Chairman)


Astor, Mr. John (Newbury)
MacColl, Mr. James (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government)


Conlan, Mr. Bernard (Gateshead, East)



Farr, Mr. John (Harborough)



Finch, Mr. Harold (Bedwellty)
Marquand, Mr. David (Ashfield)


Foot, Mr. Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maydon, Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. (Wells)


Hawkins, Mr. Paul (Norfolk, South-West)



Hobden, Mr. Dennis (Brighton, Kemptown)
Milne, Mr. Edward (Blyth)



Perry, Mr. Ernest G. (Battersea, South)


Hunt, Mr. John (Bromley)
Rossi, Mr. Hugh (Hornsey)


Jackson, Mr. Peter M. (The High Peak)
Temple, Mr. John M. (City of Chester)


Jenkins, Mr. Hugh (Putney)
Tinn, Mr. James (Cleveland)


Jones, Mr. Arthur (Northants, South)
Wells, Mr. William (Walsall, North)



Mr. G. S. Ecclestone, Committee Clerk.

WATER RESOURCES BILL

10.30 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Water Resources Bill ought to be read a Second time.
We have before us a very agreeable and relaxing morning, exploring some very interesting byways of a very complicated field of legislation. The story really goes back to the Water Resources Act, 1963, which laid down an entirely new machinery and a new code of licensing for controlling the abstraction of water. Section 27 of that Act, with which we are concerned in the Bill, relates to people applying to river authorities for a licence to abstract water and sets out the people entitled to obtain such a

licence. The one group of people with whom we are not immediately concerned in the Bill are licensees of right, who have certain existing rights to obtain a licence.
Apart from that group, all the people who apply for a licence must be in a position to use it. They must be either occupiers of contiguous land or, in the words of the Act, they must have or will have a right of access. The reason for that limitation is fairly clear. It was designed to stop licences going to people who had no bona fide interest in abstracting water, and to stop the development of a market, as it were—almost a black market—in licences, with speculators applying for licences and then trading them for their own advantage, when they had no real interest in obtaining water.
If the position were left like that the problem would arise of people who, although they did not have rights of occupation or of access, might have entered into negotiations for the acquisition of land. The problem with which we are concerned this morning arises from an assumption that, if a compulsory order was going to be made under the Water Act, 1945, to carry out works and acquire land compulsorily, that would be equivalent to negotiating for the acquisition of the land.
The difficulty really turns upon the meaning of the word "negotiating", and as to whether the threat of a compulsory order is negotiating. If an order is made or is threatened, does that amount to negotiation? It was assumed earlier that it did, but since then this problem has been raised. There has not been a court decision on it, but it was raised in a case in which the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board was involved. The discussion centred on other matters, but this is an issue on which some doubt was thrown.
The effect has been that, in order to protect themselves, river authorities and water boards, have tended to promote Private Bills, rather than use the machinery laid down in the Act. That does not seem to be in anybody's interest, except possibly the Parliamentary Bar, because the whole object of this kind of legislation is to cover the points and to prevent each case being subject to expense and delay, and also to prevent the taking up of Parliamentary time by Private Bills. But, as I said, the river authorities and water boards have felt they should have these Bills as an insurance and a protection.
This is our dilemma. One cannot get a licence unless the owner is prepared to negotiate, but it would be unconscionable to acquire land compulsorily before there was a certainty of getting a licence. That would mean that some land might be taken which there was really no case for taking, because there was no chance of getting a licence. If we do not do something about this position we shall prejudice the landowner, and it might well lead to unnecessary compulsory acquisition. Therefore, it is in no one's interest to leave the position as it is.
I direct the attention of the Committee to Clause 1(1,b) which says:
… the compulsory acquisition by that person of land of that description either has been authorised or can be authorised and has been initiated.
That brings in the possibility of having a locus to get a licence, even though one is still at the early stages of initiating compulsory proceedings. The Committee will probably want to know that, in general terms, this is not retrospective. But if the period for challenging the Order has expired, and there is therefore a de facto licence in existence, such a licence will continue.
Looked at as a whole, this is a reasonable proposal to make, and it is in everybody's interest. I do not know of any opposition in principle to what is contained in the Bill, but there have been suggestions that we should have launched on a much more comprehensive review of the 1963 Act while we were about it. That is a view which any outside person might reasonably be expected to take. But anyone who knows the workings of the House, not only in terms of Parliamentary time but in terms of that even rarer commodity, the time of skilled Parliamentary draftsmen, will know that once one departs from a very narrow point and starts on a general review of an Act one can go on and on without being able to stop.
The effect would have been that we would not have got this at all, because we should not have had the expert advice that we needed in order to get a Bill drafted. Therefore, we should have lost the opportunity for getting this Bill quickly, which is in everyone's interest. It would be a dog-in-the-manger attitude for the Committee to adopt—that because we would like a great deal more than is in this Bill we should therefore have nothing at all. This is the kind of Bill where a discussion in this sort of Committee is very valuable, as it enables us to examine the problems. This is a necessary piece of legislation and I hope that the Committee will support it.

10.42 a.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: There is no need for me to upset unduly the tranquility of these proceedings, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, it is a very pleasant morning. The only advantage in being in Opposition in


this Parliament is that sitting on this side of the Committee I have the pleasure of watching the Thames flow by, rather than watching a blank wall. When one is considering water legislation, the fact that one can see the Thames flowing by tends to concentrate one's mind a little and rather relaxes the whole situation.
As I walked along the Embankment this morning I wondered why the Government had decided to bring in such a narrow Bill, dealing with only one specific point. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that there is a shortage of Government time. That is the Government's fault, because they are neglecting what I call the bread-and-butter procedures of this House for the rather esoteric and ideological procedures which motivate the Party at present in power. I deprecate that very much. It is a very poor excuse.
The other excuse which the Parliamentary Secretary gave was that he lacked expert advice. Looking at the Members of this Committee and remembering the Members of the Committee which studied the Water Resources Bill when it went through Parliament in 1963, I find that I am the only veteran of that Bill who has been appointed to this Committee. I probably spoke more on that Bill as a backbencher than any other Member on either side of the Committee. As I walked along the Embankment this morning I said to myself "There must be some important reason why the Government have only dipped their little toes in water legislation". Incidentally, I understand that this is the first water legislation which this Government have brought before the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who gave a fair description of the Bill, did not mention the immense part which the present Secretary of State for Wales played in the proceedings on the Water Resources Bill, in 1963. If hon. Members care to look up the report of the Committee stage they will find that none other than their right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales queried Clause 27, and drew attention to the fact that that Clause—which is now Section 27 of the Water Resources Act—might be defective, and he pointed out the very point which the Government are now going to put right.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). It shows how valuable Oppositions can be. Sometimes Oppositions are right, as on this occasion was the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Wales. It is amazing how a success in Standing Committee can accelerate promotion, since he got promotion from the "effluent society"—a society into which I was put by my noble Friend, Lord Nugent—the then Member for Guildford. He promoted me to be a member of the "effluent society", for what he called my staunch work in water legislation.
During the passage of the 1963 legislation the Secretary of State for Wales put forward a rather controversial point. I believe that this is why the Government are not today legislating on a wider basis. This point will interest the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who was not on that Committee but who no doubt has read the report of the proceedings of that Standing Committee. In Committee on the 1963 Bill the Secretary of State for Wales made a most important point. He said that there ought to be a Water Board for Wales.
I should like to know whether the Government have departed from the policy laid down in 1963 by the right hon. Member who is now Secretary of State for Wales. Perhaps the truth is that the Government dare not bring in a more extensive amending Bill because they are frightened that if they open the door in this way they will be pressed to agree to a Water Board for Wales, in which case the proposals that the present Government made when in Opposition would be extensively questioned, and the conclusion would be drawn that yet again there had been a volte face in their major policies.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his careful explanation of the Bill. I have no cause to dissent from the explanation which he has given. I know from studying the Committee proceedings on Clause 27 of the 1963 Measure that the object of that Clause was to preclude frivolous or mischievous applications for a licence to abstract water.
I admit that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who was Parliamentary Secretary at the time, was responsible for


giving advice which, in the light of subsequent applications to the Court, proved erroneous. This highlights the difficulty of water legislation. It will be unfair to the Government if I do not accept a degree of liability in respect of what has proved to be a defective aspect of Section 27 of the Water Resources Act, which the Bill seeks to amend.
I want to give one short quotation from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, in the Standing Committee, on 28th May, 1963. He said:
My advice is that the existence of an Order under the 1945 Act would definitely bring water undertakers into subsection (4) under the heading of negotiations having been started, even if the Order had not confirmed that the compulsory powers were available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th May, 1963, c. 380.]
My hon. Friend took advice on this matter from the experts in the Water Division, but at that time those experts were breaking fresh ground. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Parliament was bringing in an entirely new licensing procedure. That is quite true. What he did not say is that Parliament was also bringing in an entirely new charging procedure.
In passing, I want to make a brief reference to the charging procedure, which was not mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary because it runs concurrently with the licensing procedure, which the Parliamentary Secretary did mention. The charging procedure is also under question at present. A charge is fixed for all abstractions, including abstraction for spray irrigation, and although the abatement procedure is operated in times of low rainfall, there is no provision for abating the charging of spray irrigators when their operations are held up. Unfortunately, they go on paying the same standing charges. This is another small matter which the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to put right by administrative rather than legislative means, but it is a matter which should not be slid over.
I have a modest knowledge of what went on in the formulation of the 1963 Act. It was breaking fresh ground, and I have more than degree of sympathy with the Parliamentary draftsmen. The Parliamentary draftsmen would probably

have liked to bring in a much more comprehensive statute than that which was actually produced, but we, as Parliamentarians, understand the great difficulty of getting massive Bills through the House. We live in an era of very complicated, necessarily lengthy legislation, but there is a limit to lengthy legislation and even to non-controversial lengthy legislation such as water legislation. Therefore, I exempt the Water Division of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—whose staff I happen to know well and whom I respect very much—from any charge in this matter. It was a natural error in a new departure.
Many other errors have become apparent in the working of the Water Resources Act, 1963. I was therefore surprised to hear that the Government, in a non-controversial matter, had decided that time was the governing factor in their decision not to put right other anomalies. The anomaly the Bill seeks to correct is a relatively pressing one. I would not put it much higher than that, since it can be got round by the use of the Private Bill procedure. No one wants that, and therefore we welcome the amendment to the principal Act which is proposed in the Bill.
But there is another amendment which should be made, and I cannot understand why it was not made in the Bill. This relates to Section 27, regarding abstractions of underground water. All the provisions relating to water legislation are somewhat complicated, and I shall shortly refer to the situation concerning the abstraction of underground water in connection with Section 27.
The Parliamentary Secretary explained, in a moderately brief but adequate manner, that he sought to bring about this alteration to Section 27. But there is an additional reason which makes amendment necessary, namely, the procedure envisaged, under directions by the Water Resources Board, for the transference of water between river authorities. Some people imagine that the Bill is designed to help the statutory water undertaker to initiate compulsory purchase proceedings and, at the same time, to be able to satisfy all the other interests concerned that at the end of the day they will have a licence to abstract water from a certain stretch of water.
This was what was called in question in the case of the intake order put forward by the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Company. I understand that owing to defective legislation the intake proposed was shifted to another part of the river to avoid the Private Bill procedure. The intake now operates from a different part of the river. This action was taken because of a possible challenge in the courts, which the Minister was advised might succeed. It involved a statutory water undertaker who sought to place an intake in a river at a certain point.
There is a much broader point with regard to the transference of water between river authorities. It has always been anticipated that England and Wales would become a sort of water network and that river authorities in one part of the country would make water available to river authorities in another part of the country. It was not thought that a river authority would have any difficulty in getting a licence to abstract, possibly having begun compulsory purchase negotiations, but this would prove to be the case unless the Bill were accepted by Parliament.
So far as I can see the Bill is entirely acceptable. My only object is to point out certain additions which come within the Long Title and also to ask the Government why, when they were opening a chapter of water legislation, they did not put right a number of other known defects in the 1963 Act. I do not think that, in the nature of Parliamentary proceedings, these matters would become unduly protracted. We would offer the Government reasonable facilities for bringing forward amending legislation.
I turn now to the accepted defects in Section 27 which are not covered by the Bill. The Section relates to the abstraction of underground water. I should like to give an example which may help the Committee to understand the point. A large gravel pit or series of gravel pits may be in the ownership of an organisation specially interested in gravel. The pit may contain a good deal of water. The water in the gravel pit may come wholly or mainly from underground—which is normally where gravel pit water comes from. In those circumstances water undertakers or river boards may

wish to abstract that water, but they would not wish to have—nor would the owners of the gravel pit desire them to have—an interest in the land covered by the water, namely, the gravel pit. They would merely require a right of access.
There is an extraordinary anomaly in Section 27. In the case of overground water right of access is all that is needed by the statutory water undertaker to take water out of a river. Many experts have considered this point, but nobody can understand why the Department differentiated between overground and underground water.
I am Vice-President of the Association of River Authorities and have seen the correspondence between the Ministry and the Association. It would be fair to say that the Government accept that there is a defect in the provisions concerning the abstraction of water from underground. This is the first occasion on which the Parliamentary Secretary has had charge of a water Bill and I hope that it will be an encouraging experience for him. I hope that he will be able to confirm that the Department will produce an Amendment to cover the question of underground abstraction.
My advisers and I will have a shot at producing an Amendment in Committee. I know something of the Departmental mind, however, and realise that no matter how good a shot we have it will not be acceptable. The Government will make polite and probably helpful noises, and say that they will consider it and bring forward a more satisfactory Amendment on Report. I have no wish to protract the proceedings on the Bill, and therefore suggest that if the Government want to economise on time they should produce an Amendment themselves. I would be in a position to accept it, and we might thereby eliminate the Report stage. That is purely a suggestion, which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary in order to encourage him to get the Bill through quickly. We could have almost a nil Report stage.
There are other matters which should undoubtedly have been incorporated in any amending legislation to the 1963 Act. We are now considering a minimini Bill.
There are defects in Section 32 of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Sir K. Joseph)


speaking on behalf of the Government at the time, gave an undertaking on 18th July, 1963, that the Law Society would be consulted with regard to the regulations to be made under Clause 32(3). Those regulations would have been laid before Parliament. This may seem a long time ago, but I have no reason to suppose that the present Government have not assumed the responsibilities which my right hon. Friend gave up.
A long story is attached to these regulations. I have had the opportunity of consultations with the National Farmers' Union on the question of Section 32(2). The Parliamentary Secretary will doubtless agree that there is a defect in this subsection, which deals with successors to licences. These regulations have been delayed, because the Section is defective. This is a serious matter.
I have a copy of the draft regulations which the Minister wisely did not promulgate. They run to an enormous number of sheets of paper and are terribly complicated. They have been put into my hands by the Law Society, and the explanatory memorandum has inadvertently been filed upside down. Even if it were the right way up it would be almost as complicated as the regulations. I am not surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary, in one of his first essays into water legislation, did not particularly want to bring before the House the Water Resources (Succession to Licences) Regulations, 1966, a draft of which I have in my hands. If the Government would like to change the Long Title of the Bill, which they are entitled to do, and bring in amending legislation to Section 32, it will be given a fair wind by this side of the Committee because the successorsto-licences position is in a terrible mess. That is the responsibility of the Government. The only way they can get out of it is by amending the Long Title and bringing in the regulations. I would not like to have the task of dealing with these regulations in the proposed form if they ever come before Parliament.
I always like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary when he has a fair wind, and he has a fair wind on this Bill from the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I also happen to be Vice-President. But he has a rather more dicey wind from the National Farmers'

Union. Yesterday I had the good fortune to have a reasonably long consultation with its representative, a man for whom I have a high regard and who seems to be able to comprehend these extraordinarily complicated matters.
I want to draw attention to the effects of Section 56(5) which deals with the validity of licences and the right to extract surface water for spray irrigation. This matter was looked at carefully in the Year Book of the Association of River Authorities for 1966. Page 154 is entitled "Notes on Cases" and refers to the action between the Rugby Joint Water Board and Walters relating to the extraction of water for purposes of spray irrigation. The Parliamentary Secretary and other interested parties will be aware of the decision of the court, but they may not know that there is a proposal by the South Warwickshire Water Board to issue a series of writs which may or may not be successful.
If they were to be successful they would have an unfortunate effect on the rights, or presumed rights, of spray irrigators. This was not the intention of the Water Resources Act, 1963. Under Section 45 of that Act river authorities already have the power to ration abstractions in dry spells. The procedure under which a statutory water undertaker takes out writs was not envisaged. It was outside the mechanism proposed, and the concept of the principal Act. It is a matter which requires amending legislation.
Section 29(2) of the Act was gone into extremely closely in the Year Book of the Association, and an interesting explanatory article was written by Mr. J. E. Maher, Assistant Secretary to the Country Landowners' Association, dealing with the derogation of protected rights. He was very fair to Parliament. He said that
an Act of Parliament is not produced in a sort of Utopia where Solomon is the King.
Mr. Maher knew a great deal about Parliamentary procedure. He went on to excuse the Department for making certain errors of judgment at the time when the principal legislation went through. But that does not excuse the Department, when it is opening a chapter of amending legislation, for not taking the opportunity to go a little wider and


deal with these technical points. They need to be dealt with here and now.
I have a great deal to do with water and am very interested in all aspects of water legislation. I know many interests on all sides and find them an extremely adaptable, happy and helpful crowd. River authorities work with local authorities and the Ministry, and a very happy approach is always made to all water legislation. There is a determination to make the legislation work. Nobody looks for pitfalls, or sees whether he can make difficulties between various authorities. He tries to make the concept of the Parliamentary draftsmen work.
Later in his article Mr. Maher said:
I am unashamedly an empiricist but the weakness of the empirical approach is that the occasion inevitably arises when the bloody Act cannot be made to work and I suggest that Section 29(2) of the Water Resources Act which inhibits a river authority from granting a licence authorising abstraction so as to derogate from protected rights provides one of those occasions.
He was fairly forthright. I will make no more reference to his colourful language. It certainly was pretty colourful for a report of the Association of River Authorities. These rights cannot be made to work, and the Section requires amendment.
I think that he is right. His view is endorsed by the National Farmers' Union, and among experts in the field of water I have not met anyone who dissents from it. So from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said it looks as though it will be an inordinately long time before the Government get round to amending this defective legislation. It was the legislation of a Conservative Government, and we take responsibility for it. Mr. Maher made one other sensible suggestion. He said that
a close season entirely devoted to amending Acts passed three sessions before …
should be envisaged.
My goodness—we should need a terrifically long close season after some of the legislation which has been going through in the first three years of the present Government. We should need a close season of three years. But we should have a close season to deal with some of these points. If I raised all the points which have been brought to my notice I should have to speak for a long time. I am dealing merely with the highlights.
The last highlight which was brought to my attention by the National Farmers' Union concerns Section 24 of the principal Act. I have a marginal note to remind me what that Section is about. It is a long time since 1963, and one cannot tax one's memory too much. I do not claim equality with the Prime Minister in terms of an encyclopaedic memory.
Section 24 should be read in conjunction with Section 57(4), which concerns the power of the authority to make an abatement with regard to licences. I live in the countryside, although not in the hill country. It is the custom for hill farmers to draw their water from rivers and streams which are often a considerable distance above their own holdings. We have all walked through the hills at times and seen the intakes of water for farms in the valley below. In many cases the valley farmer does not own the land on the hill. By an extraordinary mistake in the Principal Act, if the owner has a prescriptive right—or "licence of right", which I think is the terminology of the Act—to abstract water, he is allowed to pay a licence fee at the rate of one-fifth of the licence fee he would have paid if the water had been on his own land.
The owner has always had this prescriptive right but, again due to the mistake in the legislation, the river authority is not allowed to make an abatement in the licence fee, because he is drawing the water from land which is not in his own ownership, although he has always drawn the water from it. Much as the river authorities would like to make this abatement, they are not allowed to do so. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. I can do so in the Second Reading debate, whereas I cannot at later stages.
I have tried to draw aside the curtain concealing some of the defects of the 1963 Act. On the whole the Act is working well, because all concerned with water are determined to make it work well. No one would claim that it is a perfect statute, and certain defects in it are holding up proceedings.
I draw special attention to Section 32. concerning the successors to licences. That is a case where the Minister of the


day promotes regulations. The regulations were drawn a couple of years ago, found to be impracticable, withdrawn by the Government, never saw the light of day again, and will not do so until Section 32 is amended.
I draw the attention of this Committee to these factors. The Association of River Authorities has a list of other extraneous factors. I do not want to depress the Parliamentary Secretary; I want to encourage him. He has a lot to do, but he also has a well qualified Water Division, which should be asked to get busy. I feel certain that legislation such as he would propose would be regarded as non-controversial and might well come to a Second Reading Committee such as we are having the privilege of attending this morning. The underlying idea behind Second Reading Committees is that they can cope with Bills that are necessary, but will not excite Parliament, and which, although not receiving any notice in the Press, will be useful throughout the country.
We find this Bill entirely satisfactory in its extraordinarily limited way. I shall have to try to deal with the position of underground water if the Ministry does not pre-empt me. I hope very much that it will, because I do not want the proceedings on the Bill to be unduly protracted.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for an entirely satisfactory explanation. The limited provisions of the Bill will have our support in Committee, but we may put down one or two small Amendments.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. James Tinn: As has been said, this is an uncontroversial Bill, deserving of the support of both sides of the Committee. It is for this reason that it has come to this Committee for Second Reading. As the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has said, this kind of Bill does not even receive a mention in the local Press, and I doubt whether many of my constituents or other people on Tees-side are aware of its existence. Yet it is typical of many such Bills in that it will have an important practical effect on the everyday lives of the very people who are completely unaware of its existence.
This fact can be illustrated briefly by reference to the water needs of Tees-side. These needs have presented a great problem to the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board for many years, and in this area we have experienced a growing shortage of water, arising partly because of the industrial character of Cleveland and Tees-side, which is based heavily on the steel and chemical industries, both of which are heavy industrial users of water. Despite every attempt at economy, and the use of estuarial water, their demand for clean water necessarily increases and is now very considerable.
Also, to meet employment requirements there has been a great expansion of industry in the area. The expansion, which raises a problem in respect of water requirements, is proceeding apace, thanks to the policy of the Government of encouraging such development in the development areas. On Tees-side, perhaps in contrast to other parts of the North, there is an expanding population, which necessarily increases the demand for water. In meeting these increasing demands over the years the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board has faced difficulties in the conservation of water.
I well remember the protracted proceedings on the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill—or the Cow Green Bill. Even when that Bill got through Parliament the Board faced difficulties in the abstraction of water from the River Tees, and I gather that it is precisely to deal with this second kind of difficulty that the Bill has been introduced. For that reason I welcome it. As the hon. Member for the City of Chester has said, the Bill may be limited in extent, but because of the real urgency of the need for water, not only on Tees-side but elsewhere, and of the necessity to assist water authorities to obtain the water they are required to provide, I welcome the Bill and commend it to the Committee.

11.26 a.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary two questions. First, in how many cases have circumstances arisen which the Bill sets out to correct? Secondly, is the Bill designed to apply only to statutory undertakings? They would be the only people likely to be


given compulsory purchase powers in circumstances where water was likely to be abstracted in the future. Is this correct?
I endorse the idea behind the Bill, which is to make a necessary correction to the original Act. I object not so much to what the Bill includes as to what it leaves out. Here we have a really splendid, ready-made opportunity for making further Amendments. I acknowledge that some of these may be highly complicated and difficult to draft but I do not see why the Amendment concerning the abstraction of underground water, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) should require complicated drafting, or much Parliamentary time.
I cannot see why the necessary Amendments which Government Departments and the Water Resources Board admit are needed in regard to spray irrigation rights—rights which have recently been challenged by a High Court decision, which was briefly mentioned by my hon. Friend—should take up much drafting energy or Paliamentary time. They could well be included in the Bill. All that needs to be done is to amend the Long Title and the necessary Clauses.
The defects in Sections 24, 29(2) and 32 of the original Act are rather more complicated, and I can certainly understand the Parliamentary Secretary's reluctance to venture as far as remedying them, but I urge him to be a little more courageous. As my hon. Friend has already said, hon. Members this side of the Committee will give him every assistance. We feel that while he is taking a bite at this cherry he might as well take into consideration the other very useful cherries growing on the same tree.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: I cannot help sharing the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), perhaps inspired by what can be seen from our window this morning if not by what we see on the face of the Parliamentary Secretary. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having so well expressed the fears of many of us on this side of the Committee in regard to the Bill. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider one point of interpretation of Clause 1.
As far as I can see from the Water Resources Act, 1963, a river authority is the only authority which has power to acquire land compulsorily under Section 65(2). Section 23 of the Act also gives a river authority power to grant licences to abstract. If we make a simple analysis of the position we appreciate the strange position in which a river authority, which is the only authority with power compulsorily to acquire land, can apply to itself, or to another river authority, for a licence to extract water from land, inasmuch as the licence to abstract has to be given by the river authority also.
If this small Bill goes through the House unamended it would mean that a river authority, on receiving a licence to abstract, could commence abstraction before the Minister's consent to its application for compulsory purchase had come through.
I am not suggesting that in 99 cases out of 100 ministerial consent would not be forthcoming as a matter of right—but what would happen if, by virtue of this small Bill, a water authority granted a licence and commenced to extract water—knowing full well that it had applied to the Minister for confirmation of a compulsory purchase order—after which the Minister, looking further afield and seeing wider horizons, decided for reasons best known to himself not to grant the compulsory order?
Surely there is an anomaly here. It would mean that the extracting authority would have to cease extracting water, since the compulsory purchase had not been confirmed, and presumably the original owner of the land would be entitled to compensation.
Apart from asking the Minister to clear up that point, I generally welcome the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has said, hon. Members on this side of the Committee believe that its provisions are necessary, but we also believe that the Minister has missed a golden opportunity to make other changes and slight Amendments to the 1963 Act which some of us regard as just as important, perhaps not to river authorities but to those who work on and are connected with the land.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester detailed some points which we would like to see provided for in the Bill. I will not endeavour to repeat what he said, because he covered them so well and so completely. If hon. Members on this side give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading I am sure that the Minister, in his charity, will help us to get through our Amendments, and one or two new Clauses in Committee.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. MacColl: Perhaps, by leave of the Committee, I might refer to the points that have been raised. The debate has shown the Government's wisdom in narrowing the field of operations, because a number of complicated and difficult points have been raised. The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) rather suggested that I was virginal in matters of water, but he may remember that one of the most harrowing and gruelling experiences in the early stages of my tenure of office in the present Ministry was being launched into a whole series of Orders arising out of this Act—Orders which seemed to get more complicated and more controversial as they rolled off.
Certainly the 1963 Act is a complicated one, which is proving difficult to administer, though there has not yet been time for acute problems to be thrown up because some of the provisions, such as those relating to charges, have not yet begun to bite. Therefore, a comprehensive review of legislation would be inopportune at the moment. The hon. Member said that we ought to have taken time to clean up the legislative mess, but he will realise that a dynamic, progressive, forward-looking Government like this one is desperately short of Parliamentary time. We cannot spend all our time cleaning up messes left by the previous Government—and the hon. Gentleman fairly said the 1963 legislation was a mess.
The peculiar thing about this is that this was a definite assurance given by my predecessor, who is not only a distinguished lawyer but a man of great authority and prestige. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales showed incredible prescience of all the difficulties in putting his finger on the point—the assurance given to river

authorities and water boards that there would be action. We are under an obligation to clear that up.
I do not see any way in which, under the Bill, we are likely to reorganise the government of Wales. The hon. Member for the City of Chester, who may feel that Chester is the capital of Wales, need not feel that his territorial ambitions will be affected one way or the other. We are likely to include the Isle of Wight in the Bill, and we hope to put down Amendments extending the scope of the Bill in that way.
We want to make provision to deal with the question of underground extraction and gravel pits. I believe that this can be done under Section 27 of the 1963 Act. If we can we shall certainly endeavour to do so, but again I must point out that the shortage is not in relation to expertise and experience but in the skill of Parliamentary draftsmen. If we do not get it right we shall get into muddles and difficulties of the kind that we are dealing with here. We must be quite sure that we produce something which will stand up.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester referred to the abstraction of water for spray irrigation, and to complaints from the National Farmers' Union that something should be done to protect the rights of spray irrigators. I remind the Committee of what the hon. Member said about this, because it is very important. Those who know him will not be surprised to know that in Committee in 1963 he moved his Amendment for the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Rural District Councils Association and the River Boards Association. Now he has told us that he is speaking on behalf of the Law Society—although I do not think that he is vice-president of that Society. He said:
In recent times there has been a large increase in the number of owners of land taking waters from rivers and streams for purpose of spray irrigation. Accordingly, I regard it as disturbing that this Clause will enable new abstractions to take place for an undefined period. There is little doubt that people will be inclined to stake a claim, and I have seen advertisements in farming journals encouraging people who might be interested in spray irrigation to buy this equipment swiftly in order that they will get in under the aegis of a licence of right".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th May, 1963, c. 440.]


Since he was speaking from great knowledge I believe that this illustrates the problem presented by the technical development of agriculture and the need for water in the form of spray irrigation. The Regulations are presenting difficulties, and if the interested parties can say what they want to see in the Regulations—and we are having discussions with them—that is something into which we could certainly look.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) asked two questions which I shall be very happy to try to answer. First, he asked whether this would apply only to statutory undertakers. The answer is "Yes," and it is drawn wide enough to extend beyond water bodies, to apply to other public bodies which have a demand for water.
He asked how many such cases we know of. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) mentioned the problem of Croft. I believe that Essex has had some difficulties, and a number of authorities have schemes where this difficulty might arise. Some may feel that they should go for Private Bill legislation which, while it would mean that they might not be caught by this, would be an expensive way round our difficulties. In Committee we can see what can be done to improve Section 27, but I do not believe that it would be wise for us to launch into a much wider review of the working of the Act. It is a complicated and difficult one. Many of the problems are likely to be appreciated only as the Act gathers momentum, and if we can deal with this point it will be a considerable help to the working of the Act.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Temple: If I may speak again, by leave of the Committee, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for responding, and for clearing up a number of points which have been raised. I thank him particularly for his offer further to consider the Regulations on Section 32. The Law Society will be extraordinarily gratified, though I do not claim any right to speak for that Society. Occasionally I get clients other than those enumerated by the hon. Gentleman, for whom I speak frequently.
I omitted to mention one point which I would like to get on to the record, con-

cerning successors to licences. To give the background to the situation, I understand that a successor to a licence has to give notice of his succession to that licence within one month. It is rather difficult for the person taking on the property of a deceased agricultural owner or property owner to realise within one month that he has a licence to abstract water. Water has probably been abstracted for hundreds of years from the same source, but if on change of ownership the successor to the licence does not apply for a renewal the licence lapses.
This is another minor defect in the principal legislation which can cause unfortunate results if a farmer dies and his widow takes over. It may be that probate is not obtained for a long time, and they do not know exactly who is the successor in title to the land or property. It could be somebody overseas. In those circumstances it seems unreasonable that the successor to this important licence has to give notice within one month that he is the successor in title. It is a smallish point but, nevertheless, it is worth considering when the Parliamentary Secretary is considering all the other matters.
Perhaps I did the Parliamentary Secretary a slight injustice. I said that the Government had not promoted any water legislation. I did not mean that the hon. Gentleman had no experience of water legislation. He has brought in a number of Orders, some of which are almost as bad as the legislation. I always regard the Parliamentary Secretary as one of the most painstaking Members, and I should like to pay tribute to him for the painstaking manner in which he deals with these very complicated and difficult matters.
He said that will consider the question of underground water. I ask him to bring forward his own Amendment in order to save the time of the Committee at a subsequent stage. I had no idea that the principal legislation did not extend in all respects to the Isle of Wight, because the Isle of Wight has a river authority—albeit probably the smallest one in the country. It came as a bombshell to me to hear that we had specially to include the Isle of Wight in the Bill; I thought that it was automatically within the purview of everything connected with the Water Resources Act.
I thank by hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), and I also thank my other hon. Friends for joining the Committee this morning. This has not been an earth-shaking morning, or a water-rippling morning—nor will it cause any major waves in Parliament—but it has been quite an important occasion. I am glad that the Government have given a sort of undertaking to bring forward amending legislation, as the difficulties—I describe them only as difficulties—continue to crop up in respect of the principal legislation. No one is

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Harvie Anderson, Miss (Chairman)
Jones, Mr. Arthur


Astor, Mr.
MacColl, Mr.


Conlan, Mr.
Maydon, Lieut-Commander


Fair, Mr.
Milne, Mr.


Finch, Mr.
Perry, Mr. Ernest G.


Foot, Mr. Michael
Rossi, Mr.


Hawkins, Mr.
Temple, Mr.


Hunt, Mr.
Tinn, Mr.


Jenkins, Mr. Hugh

to be blamed for the slight errors which have crept in. The main thing for us to do, as Parliamentarians, is to see that those errors are eliminated as quickly as possible. This is a very small step in the right direction, and in that spirit we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Water Resources Bill ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at twelve minutes to Twelve o'clock.